Case 2301694/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Walters v Mears Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301694/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Walters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent's handling of the disciplinary process breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that requested documents were not provided despite repeated requests and earlier invitations to identify relevant material; that the claimant was told the disciplinary hearing on 6 March 2020 would proceed with or without him when his companion was unavailable; that he was asked about returning company tools in a way consistent with a pre-determined dismissal; and that a supervisor had made a false statement for the disciplinary process. The tribunal did not accept that delay in raising tenant complaints was itself a breach.
The tribunal concluded that those matters together amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract and that the claimant resigned in response to them, rather than simply to avoid dismissal. It therefore found that he had been constructively dismissed.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It added that, even if misconduct had been relied on, the defects in the disciplinary process would have rendered the dismissal unfair. Separately, the tribunal found that repeated refusals of parental leave and repeated challenges to the request caused the claimant stress and made him feel badgered, which amounted to a detriment for family reasons, although that conduct was not sufficiently serious to form part of the constructive dismissal breach.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence and that the claimant resigned in response, so he was constructively dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It also said the dismissal would in any event have been unfair because of defects in the disciplinary process. | Upheld | — | — |
| Parental leave | The tribunal upheld a detriment for family reasons claim based on the claimant's request for parental leave being refused repeatedly and challenged on site, causing stress and making him feel 'badgered'. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC
- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL
- s.47C ERA 1996
- regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999
- Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Derbyshire and ors v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council
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.