Case 1800155/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Gareth Mitchell v Heart of Yorkshire Education Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800155/2024
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rakhim
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gareth Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningGareth Mitchell worked for Heart of Yorkshire Education Group from 18 August 2014 and became a Curriculum Development Manager on 28 September 2020. After GS announced his resignation in March 2023, the claimant was asked to take on additional management duties and received two honorarium payments totalling 3,000. He resigned on 24 August 2023, giving three months' notice to 24 November 2023. His resignation letter referred to department structure, working relationships, salary and expectations.
The tribunal found that the respondent was going through a period of change and that the extra duties and restructuring did not amount to a breach of contract. It accepted that the claimant was valued, that the respondent communicated with him about his concerns, paused replacement recruitment when he first resigned, and offered mediation. On the evidence, the tribunal did not accept that the respondent acted in a way likely or calculated to destroy trust and confidence.
On the specific complaints, the tribunal found no evidence of bullying and concluded that the claimant had not shown the respondent failed to deal with any known complaint. It held that the salary issue did not amount to a breach: he was paid at the top of the scale, the Market Forces payment did not apply on the respondent's case under its policy, and he had already received the 3,000 honorarium. It also found that the failure to appoint him to the Head of Department role could not be criticised, and that his grievance was raised very late, after he had already obtained another job offer.
The tribunal concluded that there was no constructive dismissal. It found the claimant had delayed resigning after securing alternative employment, had continued working until his notice period, and had affirmed the contract if any breach had occurred. The claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent did not commit a fundamental repudiatory breach of contract or breach the implied term of trust and confidence. It found the claimant resigned after securing alternative employment, delayed his resignation, and had affirmed the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- Malik v BCCI; Mahmud v BCCI
- RDF Media Group plc and anor v Clements
- Nicholson v Hazel House Nursing Home Ltd
- WA Goold (Pearmak) Ltd v McConnell and anor
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Chadwick v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- Williams v Governing Body of Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.