Mr J Brannan v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021

The claimant resigned from his role as a Customer Delivery Driver and brought claims for automatic unfair constructive dismissal for making protected disclosures, ordinary constructive dismissal, and protected disclosure detriments. The Tribunal considered five alleged disclosures. It found that the first two alleged disclosures were not made as alleged. It found that the third was a vague disclosure about deaths of colleagues and the staff canteen, but was not satisfied that the claimant reasonably believed health and safety had been endangered. It found that the fifth disclosure, in part, was protected and qualifying, concerning a child killed by a delivery van and the claimant's concerns about his manager's dotcom driving test status.

The Tribunal rejected the alleged detriments. It found that the claimant's hours had not been removed from a permanent contract, that changes to hours reflected temporary cover and business needs, and that managers had made efforts to find additional hours for him. It found no causal connection between any protected disclosure and the written warning, informal lateness meeting, shift allocation, or other alleged detriments. The Tribunal accepted evidence that relevant decision-makers either did not know of the disclosures or acted for reasons unrelated to them.

For constructive dismissal, the Tribunal found no individual or cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the respondent had addressed concerns raised about colleagues, had not passed the claimant over for hours or progression, had proper cause for not selecting him to mentor new drivers, and was entitled to address customer complaints and lateness. It also found that the events concerning the fit note, the respondent's offer to discuss withdrawal of the resignation, and the later meeting did not establish a breach causing resignation. As there was no constructive dismissal, the automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed.