Mr C Lewis v Railscape Ltd — 2021

Mr Lewis resigned on 25 February 2020 after being suspended on 19 February 2020 and invited to a disciplinary meeting. The complaint was advanced as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that he had been expected to attend a Network Rail session on 17 February 2020, that the session was important to the respondent and its client, and that he changed his roster and did not attend, leaving an apprentice as the only Railscape representative.

The tribunal accepted that Railscape and Mr Hayes genuinely regarded the non-attendance as serious, in part because it could cause reputational damage and because the claimant gave inconsistent explanations about why he had not attended. It held that, on the information available at the time, the respondent could objectively conclude that there were allegations of serious misconduct and a risk that the investigation might be hindered if the claimant remained at work. For that reason, the suspension on full pay was within the disciplinary procedure and was not a breach of contract or of the implied term of trust and confidence. The removal of the company car during suspension was also not a breach, because it had been provided for work purposes and the claimant was not inconvenienced.

The tribunal further held that the wording of the disciplinary allegations did not itself amount to a breach, that the claimant was not entitled to infer that any decision had already been made, and that the disciplinary procedure allowed the matter to go straight to a hearing with further investigation to take place there. It rejected the suggestion that there had to be a prior investigation meeting, and found that the claimant resigned in haste. As there was no fundamental breach of contract, there was no constructive dismissal and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.