Mr E Wolstenholme v Lancashire Football Association Limited — 2021

Mr E Wolstenholme brought claims arising from his resignation from Lancashire Football Association Limited. At the start of the hearing he confirmed that he was not pursuing the wrongful dismissal claim, and that claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. The tribunal then heard the constructive unfair dismissal claim on liability only.

The claimant relied on the respondent's handling of a proposed temporary top-up of his duties in the Discipline Department, the follow-up reference to possible disciplinary action, the grievance process, the failure to provide his later contract, and the failure to produce Mr Kay for questioning. The tribunal found that the respondent had searched for the varied contract both physically and electronically but could not locate it, so it could not properly be criticised for not producing it. It also found there was no legal obligation to produce Mr Kay in the grievance process, and that his absence caused no material prejudice. The tribunal rejected the allegation that the respondent had dishonestly concealed its contact with Mr Burgess, and rejected the allegation that the grievance had been deliberately and wilfully prolonged.

Applying the Malik test, the approach in Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, and the Waltham Forest v Omilaju last-straw analysis, the tribunal held that the matters relied on did not amount either individually or cumulatively to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant had indicated at the return-to-work meeting on 20 March 2019 that his intention was to continue working, which the tribunal treated as affirmation of any earlier position. It also found that he resigned on 18 April 2019 before the appeal outcome, and that his resignation was based on his perception of procedural irregularities rather than on any objective repudiatory breach. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.