Mr I Hill v Mobility Nationwide Limited — 2021

Mr I Hill brought a claim of unfair constructive dismissal arising from events in January and February 2021. He said the respondent did not treat him fairly in grievance, investigation and disciplinary processes, would not allow him to call witnesses, removed a safety barrier at reception, and had fraudulently claimed furlough payments while he was at work. He resigned by email on 10 February 2021 shortly before the rescheduled disciplinary hearing. The tribunal accepted that his relationship with Dave Jones had deteriorated, but that was not enough on its own to establish a repudiatory breach.

On the grievance, the tribunal found that Gemma Jones was the appropriate person within the respondent’s structure to deal with it, that she listened to the claimant, and that the grievance hearing on 29 January 2021 was properly conducted. The grievance outcome letter of 4 February 2021 gave reasons for not upholding the complaint. On the investigation, the tribunal said it would have been more appropriate to give advance notice of the 20 January 2021 meeting, but found that it was an investigatory meeting rather than a disciplinary hearing, that no sanction was imposed at the meeting, and that Dave Jones had reasonable grounds to investigate the allegations about customer dealings, discounted work, private work, and safe working practices.

The tribunal also found that the disciplinary process was handled fairly. The letter of 3 February 2021 set out the allegations and potential consequence of summary dismissal. The respondent then postponed the hearing twice and offered the claimant opportunities on 5, 6 and 8 February 2021 to attend the premises, access the computer system, and gather documents for his defence; when he did not attend, it offered to print documents for him. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s reasons for not taking up those opportunities. It also found there was no specific entitlement to call witnesses, although ACAS guidance contemplates the chance to call relevant witnesses with good notice; the claimant named witnesses only on 9 February 2021, the day before the postponed hearing.

On the safety barrier issue, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the Perspex screen and other measures were sufficient and that the additional barrier was not necessary. On the furlough point, it accepted the respondent’s explanation that the claims were made at the start of the furlough scheme and that the payments had been repaid before the claimant resigned, which he did not know at the time. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities, including the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the tribunal held that the respondent had not acted without reasonable and proper cause in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship. The claim was dismissed and no compensation was awarded.