Case 3300116/2022 · Employment Tribunal
unrepresented For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300116/2022
- Decision date
- 16 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coll Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
unrepresented For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a 3D lecturer in Art and Design at the CBAT building. He complained over a number of years about lack of resources, PPE, safe storage, the unavailability of the welding room, flooding in G27, and the handling of his grievance. The tribunal found that there had been repeated delays and failures in some of those areas, but it held that most of the alleged omissions were not repudiatory breaches because the respondent had reasonable and proper cause, including budgetary constraints, repeated repair attempts, and problems with RT's performance.
On the grievance issue, the tribunal found that the respondent had not dealt with the claimant's own grievance of 5 October 2020. It held that the investigation and report largely addressed RT's grievance, did not properly investigate the claimant's complaints, and did not provide the records and outcome required by the grievance procedure. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities cited in the judgment, including Western Excavating, Malik, Lewis, Omilaju, Kaur, Cockram and W A Goold, the tribunal concluded that this failure was a repudiatory breach and an effective cause of the claimant's resignation. It accepted that he resigned on 11 August 2021 in response to the unresolved problems and had not affirmed the contract.
The tribunal also held, in the alternative, that the cumulative course of conduct amounted to constructive dismissal, with the August 2021 flooding in G27 operating as the last straw. It accepted that there was a flood on 8 or 9 August 2021, but found that the respondent had made repeated efforts to address the leaks and that the event occurred during the summer break. The separate s100 ERA 1996 automatically unfair dismissal claim failed because the claimant did not reasonably believe there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger, and because he was not dismissed for leaving or refusing to return to work or for taking protective steps. No compensation was determined in this judgment, and a remedy hearing was listed for 18 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent's failure to deal properly with the claimant's grievance was a repudiatory breach and, alternatively, that the cumulative course of conduct including the August 2021 flooding was the last straw. It found that the claimant resigned on 11 August 2021 in response and had not affirmed the contract. No remedy was assessed in this judgment; a remedy hearing was listed for 18 January 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | This was the s100 ERA 1996 automatically unfair dismissal claim based on health and safety. The tribunal found that the claimant did not reasonably believe there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger, and that the dismissal was not because he left or refused to return to work or because he took appropriate steps to protect himself or others. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Ltd implied term of trust and confidence
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd last straw
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council last straw
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Cockram v Air Products Plc
- W A Goold (Pearmak) Ltd v McConnell
- s95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s98(4) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.