- IN PERSON (ASSISTED BY HER SISTER MS H THACKWAY) FOR THE v Respondent — 2018

The claimant resigned on 28 August 2018 and alleged that her line manager, Mr Mark Edwards, had bullied her from late August 2017 onwards, particularly after a dispute over a radio in the office. She said the respondent then failed to support her complaints and that this response, together with the later appeal outcome, amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent had investigated the complaints in stages: an informal response, a formal investigation by Mark Hemming, and then an appeal which led to further enquiries. It found that the allegations were taken seriously, noting that the investigators were senior and independent, that the complaints were dealt with in detail, and that the fact the allegations were not upheld did not show they had not been properly considered. The tribunal also found that Mr Hemming’s conclusions on the sickness absence process, the wedding invitation issue, core hours, TOIL and homeworking were rational and open to him on the evidence.

On the appeal, the tribunal found that the panel properly directed further investigation, then concluded that Mr Edwards’ management style had not crossed the boundary into unacceptable behaviour or bullying. It held that there was a clear and rational evidential basis for that conclusion, and that the suggested next steps of mediation or redeployment were not disingenuous. Applying the last straw analysis from Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC, the tribunal held that the claimant’s factual case on the alleged last straw was not well founded and, in any event, the conduct complained of was not objectively sufficient to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.

The claim for constructive unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.