Mr D Tutt v Morrison Data Services Limited — 2023

The claimant resigned after a TUPE transfer, alleging that measures about ad hoc meter-reading work and travel time changed his contractual position, that the respondent failed to deal with his grievance, and that a costs warning letter was the final straw. The tribunal first refused the respondent's preliminary application to dismiss the claim on res judicata, issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and Rule 52 grounds, finding that the earlier withdrawn protective award claim was not the same or substantially the same complaint.

On Measure 7, the tribunal found that the claimant's contract and role profile were wide enough to permit ad hoc meter-reading work, that the measure was a clarification of an entitlement which Siemens already had, and that the claimant was not demoted. On Measure 9, it found that the respondent was entitled to rely on what Siemens and the trade union had said about the existing travel-time arrangements, and that the claimant knew his working day did not start until the first customer even though he had not followed that practice.

The tribunal found that the refusal to progress the grievance was not unreasonable because the matters had been extensively discussed and agreed through the TUPE consultation process. It also found that the costs warning letter, though forceful, was not unreasonable and was written in the context of proposed litigation. Considering the matters individually and cumulatively, the tribunal found no conduct without reasonable and proper cause likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, so the constructive unfair dismissal claim and wrongful dismissal claim were dismissed.