Ms D Badrick (lay advocate) v Respondent — 2020

Mr Asare was a bank worker at the Royal Free who worked in Pain Management and also as a porter. After concerns were raised in an email on 2 October 2018 about possible timesheet fraud, Ms Donnelly met him on 10 October 2018, placed him on restriction from bank shifts, and later sent a detailed email setting out the allegations. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the meeting took place at about 8.45am, that Mr Asare was told the nature of the allegations, and that he made comments such as that he was sorry and had let people down. It also found that there were some staff present when he left, but that requiring him to leave immediately did not amount to a breach of contract.

On the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the suspension, the investigation, the disclosure of the allegations, and the requirement to leave the premises were all within the Respondent's reasonable response to a potentially serious allegation and did not destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. It also held that there was no breach arising from non-payment because, by 6 November 2018, the Respondent had agreed to pay him backdated to suspension, and Mr Asare resigned only three days later on 9 November 2018. The tribunal found that he could not reasonably have believed by then that the Respondent would not pay him or would substantially delay payment.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair constructive dismissal complaint and, because there was no dismissal, the wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay also failed. It further dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim because the suspension pay was later made, and dismissed the holiday pay claim because bank workers were paid rolled-up holiday pay at 12.07% and Mr Asare had not shown anything further due. The post-resignation disciplinary process did not alter those outcomes; in the alternative reasoning, the tribunal said that if there had been a constructive dismissal it would have been unfair, but that issue did not arise for decision because the primary claim failed.