Paul Bryant v Group 1 Retail Ltd — 2025

Paul Bryant was employed by Group 1 Retail Ltd as a retail manager from 10 January 2005 until 22 December 2023. The case concerned whether he resigned in response to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, said to consist of bullying by his line manager, Karen Plane, and the respondent's response to his concerns. The tribunal heard evidence about a series of workplace incidents between June 2022 and November 2023, including Mr Bryant's private journal, his grievance of 2 October 2023, and the subsequent grievance appeal.

The tribunal found that Mrs Plane had a robust and direct style of management, but did not bully or threaten Mr Bryant. It accepted that some of the incidents occurred broadly as Mr Bryant described, including the statements on 17 August 2022 and 2 September 2022, but found that the objective context was that Mrs Plane and Mr Grant were trying to stop him becoming too involved in the handling of Mr Cox. Other incidents, including the 30 March 2023, 6 June 2023, 6 July 2023, 11 July 2023, 13 July 2023, 14 September 2023 and 20 November 2023 events, were treated as management exchanges, frustration, or misunderstandings rather than conduct calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence, whether by any individual act or cumulatively, and that Mr Bryant had begun to interpret disagreement and management criticism as bullying. It also found that the grievance investigation was reasonable, that Mr Grant dealt with the grievance fairly, and that the appeal by Mr Ames was balanced, even though the appeal upheld two incidents and partially upheld one.

The wrongful dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that Mr Bryant had accrued 18 years' service and would have been entitled to 12 weeks' notice if dismissed under section 86 ERA 1996, but found that he resigned by email on 22 November 2023 giving one month's notice, later sought paid leave to 22 December 2023, and was not dismissed by the respondent. The tribunal said that if he had asked to work his full notice and been refused, that would be different, but that was not what happened.