Mr P Garson v Natural Resources Wales — 2020

Mr Garson brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim against Natural Resources Wales. He said the Respondent required him to carry an excessive workload with insufficient management support, mismanaged the Grant Thornton review of timber marketing, and then at the 17 December 2018 meeting there was a final act that undermined his credibility and confidence in his senior role. The Tribunal accepted that he had faced sustained pressure, had worked long hours, and that the Respondent’s senior managers were dealing with serious problems, including the third qualification of the Respondent’s accounts.

Applying the constructive dismissal test under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence stated in Malik & Mahmud, the Tribunal found that the workload point did not amount to a fundamental breach. It accepted that Mr Garson had raised concerns and that his role was later split, but it considered the role senior, the workload context, and the fact that steps were being taken to reduce his responsibilities. The Tribunal also found that the steps taken in December 2018 were unlikely to have reduced his workload in more than a marginal way at that stage, but still did not cross the threshold of a fundamental breach.

On the Grant Thornton issue, the Tribunal found that Natural Resources Wales was entitled to instruct external consultants after the third qualification of the accounts. It accepted that one interim finding about contract addendums was wrong, but held that this did not make the review or its management unreasonable. The absence of a written scope, and the fact that Mr Garson was not in the oversight group, did not lead to a finding that the Respondent had mismanaged the process in a way that breached trust and confidence. The appointment of Ms Piper to lead the response was also found reasonable.

As to the 17 December 2018 meeting, the Tribunal accepted that emotions were running high and that senior managers, including Sir David Henshaw and Ms Pillman, expressed serious concerns about the state of affairs. It did not accept that they acted in a manner calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence. Taking the three matters relied upon together, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had not committed a fundamental breach and dismissed the claim.