Mr Kevin March v Stapletons Tyre Service Limited — 2021

Mr Kevin March was employed by Stapletons Tyre Service Limited from 14 September 1999 until his resignation with effect from 16 October 2019, working as a driver at the Middlesbrough hub. The tribunal treated the case as a claim for unfair constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered whether the respondent had committed a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The claimant said that three matters led him to resign: the 2016 investigation into missing cash, a July 2019 discussion about a minor vehicle accident and broken headlight, and the handling of his September and October 2019 grievance. On the missing cash incident, the tribunal found the investigation was plainly necessary, accepted that Stuart Lyon did not tell the claimant that the customer had produced a blue receipt, and found the claimant likely misheard or misconstrued what was said when under pressure. It also found that the claimant chose not to pursue a grievance even though he was offered that route.

On the July 2019 accident, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was spoken to about the incident and that this was consistent with the respondent's training-orientated process for vehicle incidents. It found that the claimant was not being disciplined, that the discussion about the damage was legitimate, and that any irritation or raised voices did not amount to a repudiatory breach. Allegations that sick pay had been withheld, that he had been refused a lift to hospital, and that he had been followed to the toilets were rejected as not proved.

The tribunal found that John Potts's grievance investigation was thorough and well reasoned, although the final outcome letter sent to the claimant was simplified and contained little reasoning. It found that the claimant probably had not read the grievance outcome or the witness statements before resigning, so they could not have caused the resignation. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been looking for other work and had sought a financially agreeable departure package, and that those considerations were more significant than any breach by the respondent. Applying Western Excavating, Malik, Morrow, Omilaju and Kaur, it held that there was no fundamental breach and dismissed the claim.