Mr J Hall v Newcastle University — 2020

The claimant was an experienced Security Officer who complained about the respondent's handling of a disciplinary matter arising from an incident on 12 December 2018 and the subsequent grievance process. The tribunal accepted that he was not given refresher training required by the respondent's policies, but found that this failure was not, of itself, a fundamental breach of contract. It also found that the respondent's suspension, investigation, disciplinary hearing and grievance handling were within the band of reasonable responses, and that there was no unreasonable delay in the disciplinary process.

On the disciplinary allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant should have switched on his body worn video before entering the student flat and that, after separating the fighting students, he failed to de-escalate the situation when he shoved BG out of the door and re-engaged with him. It accepted that the respondent was entitled to conclude that there had been a failure to use body worn video early enough and a failure to de-escalate, and that issuing a final written warning was within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found that some matters might have been handled differently, such as interviewing student witnesses or Mr Goldsmith, but concluded that those matters would not have had any material effect on the outcome.

The grievance allegations, which included complaints of victimisation and procedural failings, were found to be vague and inconsistent, with no evidence that the claimant had been targeted because of his 2017 grievance. The tribunal found that Mr Watt and Mr Garfield reasonably concluded there was no specific tangible evidence of victimisation and that the grievance had been adequately investigated. Applying the Malik implied term of trust and confidence, and referring to Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose, Agoreyo v LB Lambeth and Blackburn Stores v Aldi, the tribunal held that the respondent had not acted in a way calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.

The claimant resigned by email on 15 July 2019 after a welfare meeting in which he said his confidence in management was through the floor and that he did not wish to return to work. The tribunal found that he had not proved constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, and that the respondent had not breached the contract so as to entitle him to notice pay. The judgment was on liability only and the listed remedy hearing was vacated.