In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked for the respondent as a production engineer from October 2008 until 4 March 2021. He resigned on 26 February 2021 with notice to 31 May 2021. The tribunal rejected his direct age discrimination and age-related harassment claims, but upheld his constructive unfair dismissal claim. It accepted that he was technically capable but difficult to manage, and that many of the matters he complained about were ordinary management actions rather than discriminatory treatment.

On the age claims, the tribunal considered a series of incidents from September 2020 to February 2021, including Project Z, Project Y, Project W, the security-breach document, the hospital-treatment emails, the desk move and the Project T feedback meeting. It found that RB and CB were entitled to manage those matters, that any irritation or criticism was not shown to be related to age, and that the conduct was either reasonable, trivial, or not capable of amounting to harassment under section 26 Equality Act 2010. It also rejected the suggestion that BA's 22 January 2021 email provided a proper basis to infer age discrimination.

The tribunal was critical of the handling of the claimant's 19/20 PfDR. It found that CB initially intended to grade him as "successful" but changed the rating to "must improve" after RB's intervention, without the claimant having had a proper discussion during the appraisal year to warn him that such a rating was likely. It also found that the grievance process and the 14 December 2020 letter, which said the PfDR would be fully retracted and apologised for distress, were misleading because the respondent intended to reissue the PfDR in substantially the same form.

The tribunal held that the handling of the PfDR and grievance, taken together, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence without reasonable or proper cause. It found that the claimant resigned two days after receiving the revised PfDR, that the PfDR process was an effective cause of the resignation, and that he had not affirmed the contract. The tribunal noted that Project T and Project Y also played a part, but made no finding that the constructive dismissal was influenced by age. Remedy was adjourned and the parties were encouraged to agree terms.