Mr A Grisins v Filtrex Global Ltd — 2020

The tribunal found that on 2 June 2020 the claimant posted a threatening message in the respondent's staff WhatsApp group saying, in substance, that unless he was paid compensation he would take matters to tribunal. In response, Dave Fox told him not to come into work the next day and to stay at home on pay while the directors decided what to do next. The tribunal held that this was not a dismissal and did not amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal relied on the claimant's subsequent conduct to reject his case that he had been dismissed or pushed out. He attended work on 4 June, reported sick on 5 June, and then failed to comply with the respondent's sickness absence reporting procedures after his fit note expired on 29 June. The tribunal found that the claimant had not resigned in response to any breach on 2 June; instead, he only made clear on 6 August 2020, when he refused the disciplinary hearing, that he no longer considered himself an employee.

The tribunal applied section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, including Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp, Mahmud v BCCI, Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation and Bashir v Brillo Manufacturing Co. It concluded that there had been no fundamental breach of contract, no repudiatory conduct by the respondent, and no constructive dismissal. The complaint of unfair dismissal therefore failed and was dismissed.

On the respondent's counterclaim, the tribunal found that money loaned to the claimant during employment remained outstanding. It accepted the claimant's agreement that £1,302.65 was due under the loan arrangements and ordered him to repay that sum to the respondent.