Mr J Fireman of 42 Bedford Row For the v Ms G Holden of 3 Paper Buildings — 2022

Mr Nathaniel Brooks joined the respondent on 3 January 2019 as a regional operations manager. After a redundancy reorganisation in August 2019, his region became larger and he accepted the revised role. The tribunal accepted that travel requirements increased, but found that the change was not materially more onerous and did not amount to a breach. It also found that, although the business was affected by the pandemic and staffing shortages, the respondent was trying to address those pressures.

The tribunal found one breach: after a burglary in October 2020, the claimant’s company BMW was stolen and the only immediately available replacement was a sub-standard Nissan. It found that Mr Creaney did try to assist in obtaining a better replacement, but the temporary provision of an unsuitable car was a breach by the respondent. The tribunal did not accept that there was a consistent failure to support the claimant thereafter. It found that Mr Drown and Mr Creaney provided support, including at the 8 March 2021 meeting about workload, by taking on recruitment responsibilities, reducing the claimant’s regional responsibility, and providing cover. The refusal of the claimant’s flexible working request in February 2021 was found to be a fair and reasonable decision based on proper business considerations.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s reliance on exclusion from events and recruitment activity. It found that the motorbike event on 24 April 2021 was not work-related and was not something he should have expected to attend. It also found that there was no exclusion from the June 2021 motorbike travel, no breach in relation to the Reading recruitment issue, and no breach in relation to cover at Hinkley. The claimant resigned on 11 May 2021, withdrew that resignation on 14 May 2021, and resigned again on 24 June 2021 giving three months’ notice. The tribunal accepted that his perceived lack of support was the principal reason for resignation, but found that no formal grievance had been raised.

Applying section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) ERA 1996, and the authorities on constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the replacement-car issue alone was not a fundamental breach. Looking at the matters cumulatively under the Malik implied term of trust and confidence and the last-straw approach discussed in Omilaju and Kaur, it found that the respondent’s conduct, viewed objectively, did not amount to a repudiatory breach. The claimant resigned in response to the matters he complained of, but those matters did not amount to constructive dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.