Mr S Watson v Stanley Learning Partnership — 2022

The tribunal found that Mr Watson was employed as a teaching assistant and that he remained employed under that contract throughout his time with Stanley Learning Partnership. It rejected his case that he had any contractual right to be offered the HLTA vacancy filled by CC, finding that he did not meet the essential criteria for the role and had not been operating as a HLTA in the way he claimed.

The tribunal accepted that there were discussions and management interventions in early 2021 about Covid-19 compliance, use of corridors and toilets within bubbles, discussion of staffing arrangements, and the claimant's production of photographic or copied learning resources. It found that these matters were investigated or raised with reasonable and proper cause, and that Miss Lewis and others were entitled to address them. It also found that the allocation of Class 13 duties, study time for the HLTA course, and after-school clubs were management decisions within the respondent's powers and were not punitive measures.

When the claimant found documents on 3 March 2021 and understood them to mean that he had been removed from a lead role in Class 13, the tribunal found that this did not amount to a demotion or any repudiatory act. It held that the timetable and staffing arrangements did not show seniority in the way the claimant suggested, and that the claimant had left his class unattended and then left the school without notifying senior management. The respondent made efforts to contact him and thereafter followed its sickness absence procedures, including inviting him to an attendance management meeting, asking for a wellbeing questionnaire and referring him to Occupational Health.

Applying Western Excavating and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal concluded that none of the matters relied on by the claimant, individually or cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. It also held that the claimant's own evidence on the alleged final straw was inconsistent, that he had not identified a clear repudiatory event, and that his resignation on 1 June 2021 was not shown to be in response to any breach by the respondent. The claim for constructive dismissal therefore failed, and the related unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed as well.