Case 2413543/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Crompton v MLN Ground Management Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413543/2019
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Crompton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Crompton resigned on 29 June 2019 after an incident on 10 June 2019 involving John Flitcroft. The tribunal accepted that Mr Flitcroft had behaved in a threatening manner, had grabbed the claimant, and that the respondent treated that conduct as gross misconduct, but it found that the respondent’s disciplinary policy left it discretion to deal with each case on its merits rather than making dismissal mandatory in every case of gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the respondent handled matters badly in some respects. In particular, it found it unfair that the claimant was not given an opportunity to respond to allegations made about him in witness statements, and it noted other flaws in the process, including a statement taken from Gemma Staves’ brother and confusion about the timing of one witness statement. However, it held that those defects did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that the claimant resigned before the grievance process had concluded.
On the claimant’s concern that he was being made to work in an unsafe environment, the tribunal found that he had exaggerated the extent of the risk, relying in part on the fact that he drove Mr Flitcroft home after the incident and returned to work after seeing him on 17 June 2019. It also accepted the respondent’s evidence that a risk assessment was carried out and managers were told not to roster the claimant and Mr Flitcroft together. As the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent’s conduct had been calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, the unfair dismissal claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was no constructive dismissal because the respondent had not fundamentally breached the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- constructive dismissal test
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI SA
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.