Case 2415294/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen Hunter v The Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Association for the North West of England and the Isle of Man (NW RFCA) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2415294/2020
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen Hunter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned on 20 April 2020 after raising allegations about Lt Col Black and after receiving a notice to quit Farm Cottage. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a skilled and hard-working employee, but it found that the respondent’s investigation into the bullying allegations was not a sham. It found that the investigation was carried out by an independent HR consultant, that the disciplinary process properly concluded that bullying had occurred, and that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for the confidentiality surrounding the investigation and sanction.
On Farm Cottage, the tribunal found that the claimant occupied the property under a licence only and had no contractual entitlement to housing as part of his employment. It accepted that the respondent had made genuine efforts over many years to repair the property, with more than £86,000 spent between 2007 and April 2020 and more than £40,000 spent since the beginning of 2018. The tribunal accepted evidence that the underlying problems included flooding and groundwater issues, that the respondent had a finite repairs fund, that alternative accommodation had been offered, and that Lt Col Black had no role in repair decisions.
Applying the constructive dismissal authorities, the tribunal held that there was no fundamental breach of contract and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the notice to quit was not a threat but a fair response to unsustainable repair costs and that, even if it was the last event prompting resignation, it was innocuous and fairly reached. The tribunal also found that the claimant resigned about four months after the disciplinary outcome in December 2019, so the contract had in any event been affirmed. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the notice-pay breach of contract claim had been withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal held there was no fundamental breach, no breach of trust and confidence, and the claimant did not resign in response to the alleged breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The judgment states it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Malik v BCCI / Mahmud v BCCI implied term of trust and confidence
- RDF Media Group plc and anor v Clements
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- Logan v Customs and Excise Commissioners
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Chadwick v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd
- Williams v Governing Body of Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
- Abbycars (West Horndon) Ltd v Ford
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
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.