Mrs. H Thorpe v Children’s Links Limited — 2021

Mrs Helen Thorpe claimed constructive unfair dismissal against Children’s Links Limited arising from the disciplinary process that followed the termination of the Little Wings service level agreement at RAF Odiham. The tribunal applied the constructive dismissal framework in Western Excavating v Sharp and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and also referred to Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle on causation. It found that the claimant resigned in response to the disciplinary process, but the respondent’s conduct did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.

The tribunal found that the claimant had management responsibility for Little Wings and had been involved in lease and fee negotiations with the MOD. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant had not informed senior management or the Board about a £35 per child per day fee cap raised by the MOD, and that the issue was not recorded in the risks and issues log or reported in board minutes. It also accepted evidence that the claimant had sent a proposal setting fees materially above that cap and that the MOD later terminated the service level agreement, citing dissatisfaction with childcare costs and management of staff and the facility.

In relation to the disciplinary process, the tribunal held that the claimant was given enough information to understand the allegations, enough time to prepare, and a fair opportunity to respond. It accepted that some matters could have been handled better, including the brevity of the appeal outcome letter, but found that the investigation, disciplinary hearing, final written warning, and performance improvement plan were within the range of responses open to the respondent on the basis of a reasonable belief in misconduct. The tribunal also rejected the claimant’s arguments that inadmissible evidence had been relied upon or that the return-to-work arrangements were unreasonable.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent’s actions were not calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. Although the claimant felt strongly that the final written warning and PIP were unjustified, the tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to take disciplinary action on the facts as it understood them. The claim was therefore dismissed in full, and no monetary award was made.