Miss D Fenton v Tameside College — 2022

Miss Fenton was employed by Tameside College from 5 January 2005 until 2 April 2021, latterly as a Progress Tutor. She resigned on 5 March 2021 while disciplinary and grievance matters were still being processed, and her case was that she had been constructively dismissed because the College had breached the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal rejected each of the five matters relied on as a fundamental breach. It found that the 4 January 2021 communications about attending work during the lockdown did not amount to a breach, that the respondent was entitled to investigate the claimant’s non-attendance on 5 January and the altercation on 6 January, and that the investigation into the 6 January incident was reasonable. On the evidence, the tribunal accepted that the claimant swore at her colleague, but did not accept her allegations that the colleague stood over her, pulled down her mask, or failed to observe social distancing.

The tribunal also found that the respondent acted reasonably in dealing with the claimant’s grievances together with the disciplinary process, because the grievances were intrinsically linked to the issues being investigated. By the time the claimant resigned, she had been told clearly that the grievances would be considered at the 8 March hearing. The tribunal further found that the 13 January investigatory meeting was conducted within the range of what a reasonable employer could do, and noted that the claimant’s trade union representative did not object to the way it was handled.

Redeployment and workplace adjustments did not found a breach. The tribunal held there was no contractual obligation to redeploy the claimant, and that the College was under no legal duty to make the workplace changes she suggested because she did not have a disability. It did not accept that redeployment had been finally refused; Mr Dowd’s position was that it could be discussed at the hearing, and the tribunal found that a reasonable employer could take that approach. As no dismissal was found, the tribunal did not determine remedy issues. It added that, if dismissal had been established, it would not have found dismissal fair, because the disciplinary panel imposed only a written warning and dismissal would not have been within the range of reasonable responses on the facts found.