Ms Sarah Harty (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant was employed as Deputy Head of Branch for Counter Pollution and Salvage from 4 July 2017 and resigned on 10 September 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent’s May 2020 restructure removed the claimant’s job title from the new structure, introduced a new role of Counter Pollution and Salvage Officer for Northern Ireland and the Scottish Islands, and did so without prior consultation with the claimant or his trade union. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was told he would report to Richard Hackwell temporarily while the structure was worked through, and that the dispute arose because the claimant said his role had changed substantially.

On the contractual issues, the tribunal found that clause 5 of the contract was breached because the claimant was to be required to perform a different job title and duties from those that had applied to his Deputy Head role. It found, on the evidence of Stan Woznicki and the claimant’s performance reviews, that OPRC audits were no longer part of the claimant’s key responsibilities after the 2017 role profile change, so the respondent’s reliance on the management system role profile did not justify treating audits as part of the claimant’s actual role. The tribunal did not find a breach of clause 7, because the claimant’s normal place of work remained Southampton; the complaint was about the anticipated travel burden of the new role rather than a change to the contractual place of work.

The tribunal held that, viewed cumulatively, the respondent’s conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It relied on the lack of consultation, the narrow alignment process, the failure to consider the claimant’s actual duties with input from his former line manager, the absence of support, and the appeal outcome, which did not address the claimant’s personal circumstances or offer redeployment options. Applying section 95(1)(c) and section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the authorities cited, the tribunal found that the claimant resigned in response to that breach and was constructively dismissed. It further held that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent had shown no fair reason within section 98.