In person For the v Mr Rozycki - Counsel — 2020

Mr Khan had been employed by Asda since 17 October 2005. After a long period of sickness absence from July 2015, including knee problems and later whiplash injuries, he was paid 23 weeks of Company Sick Pay. The tribunal found that the remaining CSP entitlement was extinguished on 6 April 2016 under the respondent's policy. When he later returned under a phased rehabilitation plan in July 2017, he reached full hours but did not achieve the required pick rate and showed no week-on-week improvement. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that he had not returned to full duties and was therefore not entitled to further CSP when he went off work again in November 2017.

The tribunal also considered a series of grievances and investigations between 2017 and March 2018, including complaints about a second-job allegation, holiday pay, a taxi to an occupational health appointment, being sent home on 1 September 2017, and the handling of CSP. It found that the respondent generally dealt with the grievances in accordance with its policy, which was non-contractual and used indicative rather than mandatory timescales. Some of the claimant's grievances were upheld, including complaints about Mr Perera sending him home and Ms Tanner's suggestion that he had not tried different earpieces, which the tribunal treated as evidence that the process was not one-sided.

On the January to March 2018 grievance appeals, the tribunal found that Mr Coker, as General Manager, took the complaints seriously and was trying to resolve them so that the claimant could return to work. The tribunal accepted that the respondent was entitled to investigate the CSP-abuse and second-job allegations when suspicion arose, and noted that those processes ended without findings against the claimant. The only criticism identified was that Mr Coker could have replied sooner to the claimant's chase email of 14 March 2018, but that delay was not enough to amount to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The tribunal held that the claimant had not identified a final straw capable of amounting to a repudiatory breach. His disagreement with the grievance outcomes, the length of the process, and the timing of the written outcome letter did not, individually or cumulatively, justify a constructive dismissal claim. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. The unlawful deductions claim was also dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not contractually entitled to the CSP he claimed.