Ms H Wood v Aster Group — 2023

The claimant, Ms H Wood, brought complaints arising from her suspension during a redundancy consultation process in the PMO. The tribunal found that the respondent was restructuring the PMO, that the claimant's role was one of those proposed to be deleted, and that the consultation started on 27 July 2022. It found that the claimant quickly disengaged from the process, declined the first consultation meeting, said she did not intend to apply for any roles in the new structure, and communicated with colleagues outside the PMO about the consultation and reduced roles.

On the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to suspend the claimant after she breached the 48-hour embargo, ignored a further instruction not to communicate outside the PMO, and cancelled a large number of meetings in projects she was supporting. It held that the suspension was not operated in an oppressive manner, that the respondent was entitled to move from the Resolution Policy to the Disciplinary Policy, that the suspension period was short, and that the claimant's complaints about the suspension, the consultation process, and the handling of her grievance did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal also found that causation was not made out. It concluded that the claimant had decided to leave the business by 29 July 2022, if not before, and that much of her later case was constructed with hindsight. Applying the Malik trust and confidence principles and the last straw analysis it cited, the tribunal held that there was no constructive dismissal and, in any event, any breach was not an effective cause of her resignation. The respondent's s.98(4) case was said to be academic.

The redundancy payment and notice claims also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant was not redundant and was not dismissed by reason of redundancy as at 10 August 2022. It further held that the respondent had not acted in breach of contract so there was no entitlement to damages for notice.