In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a soft fruit breeding manager employed since 16 February 1987, resigned by letter dated 28 June 2019 after the respondent had investigated concerns about pesticide application and other performance issues and had invited him to a stage 3 capability hearing. The claimant said the process was affecting his health and that of his wife, and at hearing he identified the invitation letter, particularly the warning that dismissal could be an outcome, as the trigger for his resignation.

The tribunal held that the claimant resigned too soon. It accepted that the respondent had investigated the allegations in detail, produced a lengthy report, and was entitled to conclude that there was a case to answer and to invite him to a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found that dismissal was possible but not inevitable, and that the claimant did not wait for the disciplinary process to run its course.

Applying section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in Malik v BCCI, the tribunal found no fundamental breach by the respondent. It said there was nothing wrong in warning the claimant that dismissal could be an outcome, and that the respondent would have been criticised had it failed to give such a warning. Because there was no dismissal and no breach of trust and confidence, the constructive unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.