Mr J. Ward v F. G. Curtis plc Mr R. Pope Mr A. Leet — 2024

Mr J. Ward worked for F. G. Curtis PLC from 19 January 2009 until his resignation took effect on 2 July 2021. The tribunal accepted that Mr Croker had interfered in the Repro department on occasions and had undermined the claimant in his role, including by organising an Esko demonstration without first consulting him. It did not accept that Mr Croker had displayed a superior attitude or that there had been a systematic campaign against the claimant.

The tribunal found that the Company’s response to the conflict was defective in several respects. Mr Curtis did not give the claimant the support and reassurance he wanted, job descriptions were not clarified, the occupational health recommendations for independent external mediation and a stress risk assessment were not properly explored, and the grievance appeal was dealt with in a cursory way by Mr Leet. It also found that the grievance investigation itself was significantly flawed, including the failure to address the age discrimination allegation, but it held that the investigation was not unfair or unbalanced and that Mr Pope’s grievance outcome was balanced and largely upheld the claimant’s complaints.

Applying s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the approach in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp, the tribunal concluded that the Company’s acts and omissions had eroded trust and confidence to some degree but were not, taken as a whole, a repudiatory breach. It considered that the grievance outcome and recommended resolutions were sensible and constructive and that this saved the situation, so the claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed. The tribunal added that, if it had been wrong on liability, it considered the employment would probably have ended within a further two to three months in any event.

On the age-related victimisation complaint, the tribunal held that the claimant made a protected act in his 27 April 2021 written summary when he alleged that Mr Croker had acted to speed up his retirement because he was 68. It found detriments in the handling of the grievance and appeal, including the failure to address the age discrimination complaint and the cursory appeal hearing, but it found no evidence that the respondents treated him in those ways because he had made the protected act. The victimisation claim therefore did not succeed.