- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Ms M Sangster (solicitor) — 2018

Mr Ford brought a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. A preliminary hearing had refused his application to amend the case to include public interest disclosure. The tribunal identified ten matters said to amount, individually or cumulatively, to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, including pay band and appraisal issues, redeployment, refusal of leave, grievance handling, and alleged contact by other employees after drug and alcohol testing. It also recorded the respondent's evidence that, in November 2016, its fraud assurance team identified unusual activity on the claimant's gas and electricity accounts and began an investigation after meter readings appeared to have been amended downward; the outstanding balances identified were £1,015 for gas and £1,298 for electricity.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's account of why he resigned and accepted the respondent's case that the real reason was to avoid the impending disciplinary hearing about the fraud allegations. It found the claimant's evidence unreliable on a series of points, including his explanation about the meter readings, his account of the occupational health report, the circumstances of redeployment, feedback on applications, contacts with Safe Call and Ofgem, and his evidence about the suspension letter.

On that basis the claim failed at the first hurdle because the tribunal was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the resignation was caused by the alleged breaches. In the alternative, the tribunal held that the last straw argument also failed. It relied on Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC and concluded that the final straw relied on by the claimant was not capable of contributing to any earlier breaches; it also noted that the documentation underpinning that complaint was only received after his resignation. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and no award was made.