Case 2300010/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Graham John Shaw v New Generation School Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300010/2020
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Graham John Shaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Shaw worked for New Generation School Trust as Premises Manager at Hope Community School from 22 February 2016 until 24 September 2019. He alleged that a course of conduct around health and safety concerns, grievance handling, Tony Brown’s conduct, and a reduction in hours meant he had been constructively dismissed, and he also advanced an automatic unfair dismissal case under section 100 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that his role included site safety and contractor-related health and safety matters, but not supervision of kitchen hygiene or food preparation.
The tribunal found a number of shortcomings on the Respondent’s side. It held that the Respondent did not provide safety equipment or training promptly, did not hold health and safety meetings with the Claimant after 9 February 2018, and breached its grievance procedure and the ACAS Code in relation to the Claimant’s complaints of 11 September 2017, 19 July 2018 and 14 January 2019. It also found some health and safety concerns were not dealt with promptly, including breakfast club food storage, asbestos documentation and PAT testing. By contrast, the tribunal found some matters were resolved, including the on-call list by July 2018, the red-topped mop issue by January 2019, and the asbestos risk by 23 January 2019.
The tribunal held that the Respondent’s unilateral reduction of the Claimant’s hours from 30 to 25 per week, effective from 1 May 2019, was itself a repudiatory breach because hours were a fundamental term and no workload or risk assessment had been shown. It also concluded that the earlier course of conduct could amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. However, it found that the Claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to pursue resolution through meetings and correspondence, including meetings on 13 March 2019, 16 July 2019 and 4 September 2019, and by waiting until 23 September 2019 to resign while on sick leave. The tribunal further held that the comment made at the 4 September 2019 meeting that issues should be reported under school procedures was not a fresh repudiatory breach and did not amount to the last straw. The claims were therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic constructive unfair dismissal under section 100 ERA 1996; the tribunal held the claim failed because there was no dismissal under section 95(1)(c). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996; the tribunal found some breaches, including a unilateral reduction in hours, but held the claimant affirmed the contract before resigning on 23 September 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik and Mahmud v BCCI
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Robinson v Tescom Corporation
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- WE Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook
- Chindove v William Morrisons Supermarkets PLC
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
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.