Mr D Maciąg v Curry’s Group Limited Heard: at Nottingham, in public — 2023

Mr Maciąg was employed as a QA operative from 2016 and worked on the respondent's Newark CRC site. After furlough in spring 2020, he was moved from the mobile team to Flat Panel as part of a wider reduction in mobile work; the tribunal found that his contract allowed redeployment within level 1 roles, that there was consultation on his return from furlough on 7 June 2020, and that the move caused no change to pay or terms. When he later self-declared as mask exempt in November 2020, the tribunal found that an individual risk assessment showed he could not safely remain in Flat Panel because the role included two-person lifts, so he was redeployed temporarily to warehouse work on the same pay and terms.

The tribunal accepted that on 23 December 2020 a covering first line manager genuinely felt threatened and intimidated by the claimant's conduct, leading to suspension and a disciplinary process. It rejected the suggestion that the allegation was false or that the respondent was looking for a reason to dismiss him, and it found the investigation and disciplinary hearing to be swift, thorough and balanced. In March 2021 a further temporary move to Spares was proposed because the warehouse arrangement could not continue long term; the claimant raised only vague concerns, then went off sick with work-related stress from 25 March 2021 and later submitted a grievance about the earlier moves, the December incident and the proposed Spares transfer.

Applying s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, the implied term of trust and confidence, and the last-straw authorities, the tribunal held that the grievance rejection on 6 August 2021 was not itself a repudiatory breach and that the earlier matters, whether taken separately or cumulatively, were either not made out or were supported by reasonable and proper cause. It found that the claimant had not affirmed the contract during the short period before resignation, but because there was no breach there was no constructive dismissal in law. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed without any need to determine fairness under s.98(4). The separate breach of contract / wrongful dismissal claim failed because the respondent had not dismissed the claimant, and the unlawful deductions claim was withdrawn.