Mr D Ledsham v OCS Security Ltd — 2024

The claimant worked as a security officer from 4 September 2019 and resigned on 22 April 2023. The tribunal found that David Hannam had behaved towards him in a belligerent, off-hand and aggressive way from the outset, including shouting at him, unfairly criticising his work, and sending the “Monsewer Ledsham” email in January 2020. It found that Mr Cooper’s responses were brief and informal, that he minimised the seriousness of the complaints, and that he did not take formal action. The removal of the dignity at work poster, the shift change in March 2020, and the later complaints in May, July and December 2020 were treated as part of the same course of conduct. Cumulatively, the tribunal held that the respondent’s failures in relation to Mr Hannam amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the duty to provide reasonable support, and the duty to provide a safe workplace.

The later difficulties with David Burns did not themselves amount to a fundamental breach, but the tribunal held that they formed part of the same overall sequence. It found that both men contributed to a tense, “tit for tat” relationship, that Mr Burns was often late, and that the claimant repeatedly challenged him and made negative logbook and handover diary entries. The immediate trigger for resignation was the canteen incident on 22 April 2023, but the tribunal held that the respondent had allowed Mr Burns’s lateness and related conflict to drift without effective action. That failure was a significant part of the factual matrix leading to the resignation and contributed to the cumulative breach.

Applying Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, the tribunal held that the later events involving Mr Burns formed part of the earlier course of conduct, even though there was a gap of around 2.5 years between the last documented Hannam complaints and the resignation. It held that the claimant had not affirmed the contract by giving one month’s notice or by continuing to work briefly after resigning. The dismissal was therefore a constructive dismissal and was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent’s response fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal did not make any section 207A Acas uplift or reduction.

On compensation, the tribunal held that the claimant’s conduct towards Mr Burns was culpable or blameworthy. It found that he inflamed the situation by repeatedly challenging Mr Burns about his timekeeping and by making negative comments in the logbook and handover diary. For that reason, it said the basic award should be reduced by 35% and the compensatory award should also be reduced by 35%. No monetary amount was fixed in this judgment, and the matter was listed for a remedy hearing.