Mr. A Mance v EDF Energy plc — 2019

The claimant worked as a Senior Decision Analyst on the Smart Metering Project and raised concerns about workload during 2016. The tribunal found that those concerns were discussed in one-to-one meetings, that managers gave support and guidance on prioritisation and working style, and that the evidence did not show an excessive workload or a failure to address his concerns. It also found that a June 2016 email sent by Mr Willis using a photograph of the claimant asleep on a train was a poor attempt at humour, but that Mr Willis apologised promptly and the matter was agreed to be dealt with informally.

The claimant alleged that his returns to work in July and October 2016, reductions in sick pay, grievance handling, grievance appeal, and an ill-health absence meeting formed part of a repudiatory breach and detriments for raising health and safety concerns. The tribunal found that the July return to work meeting was handled appropriately, that the task set was simple and without a deadline, and that the October return was managed with occupational health and HR input, light duties and adjustments. It found the reduction to half pay and nil pay followed the contractual sick pay terms, the grievance and appeal were handled fairly and consistently with the respondent's procedures and the ACAS Code, and the November 2017 ill-health absence meeting was a step the respondent was entitled to take after lengthy absence.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and concluded, viewed objectively, that the respondent had not shown an intention to abandon the employment contract. It found the claimant had told his GP in August and September 2016 that he intended to resign, later sought a settlement through solicitors, and resigned in November 2017 after the grievance process, subject access material and the proposed ill-health meeting. The tribunal found he resigned and was not dismissed, so the constructive unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and was dismissed.

On the section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim, the tribunal found the respondent had a health and safety committee, health and safety representatives, and a zero-harm policy, and that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to raise concerns through those routes. It also found no evidence that any alleged treatment was done because he had raised health and safety concerns. Because the tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed, the section 100 health and safety dismissal claim was also dismissed. The hearing was limited to liability, and no remedy was awarded.