Mr Lewis Clements v Roehampton University Sitting At: London South — 2023

Mr Lewis Clements brought a claim of constructive unfair dismissal arising from a series of workplace incidents over the course of his employment as Head of Maintenance at Roehampton University. The tribunal identified six episodes relied on by the Claimant, including an early confrontation with Colin Mayer, advice given by HR about suspected overtime fraud, the Tony Brown incident during the restructuring, two incidents involving Wayne Morgan, and the later incident involving Keith Wickes. The claim was dismissed because the tribunal concluded that none of those matters, whether individually or cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

On the earlier incidents, the tribunal accepted that the Claimant had been left feeling unsupported and that some of the HR advice was poor or ill-informed, including the suggestion that only an anger management course was available after the Colin Mayer incident and the later advice that CCTV footage could not be used in relation to suspected overtime fraud. However, the tribunal found that these were not dismissive, hostile or offensive responses and did not cross the objective threshold for repudiatory conduct. In relation to Tony Brown, the tribunal found that the Respondent acted with reasonable and proper cause by suspending Mr Brown, investigating the allegation and arranging a disciplinary hearing, even though it later allowed him to leave on a settlement agreement or redundancy basis rather than proceed to dismissal.

As to Wayne Morgan, the tribunal found that the Claimant did ask for support and that HR and his line manager did not actively progress matters as much as they might have done, but it held that the Claimant did not press the issue forward and there was no evidence that he had been ignored, undermined or treated with disrespect. The tribunal therefore held that this sequence did not amount to a breach of contract. On the Keith Wickes incident, the tribunal accepted that the Claimant had genuinely believed he had been assaulted and that he was very distressed, but it found that the Respondent did respond: Mr Hall spoke to him the same day, an investigation officer was appointed, the investigation was carried out thoroughly, and Ms Chapman replied to his August email within a reasonable time. The tribunal held that the Respondent’s refusal to give guarantees about future conduct which it could not provide was not capable of amounting to repudiatory breach.

The tribunal also considered the delay between the June incident and the Claimant’s resignation on 24 September 2021, but held that the timing did not amount to affirmation because it was understandable that he needed time to decide whether to leave. Applying the principles from Western Excavating, Malik, Buckland, and Kaur, the tribunal held that the Respondent’s conduct, viewed singly or cumulatively, did not show an intention not to be bound by the contract. It therefore dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim in full.