Mr L Johnson v South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust — 2022

The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his ET1 to add a further alleged repudiatory breach concerning the respondent's handling of his 2016 complaint. It held that point had not been properly pleaded as a freestanding breach, was significantly out of time, and allowing it would prejudice the hearing, although the 2016 events could still be relied on as background.

On liability, the tribunal found that most of the factual matters relied on by the claimant were not made out. It rejected the allegations that Mrs Saunders said she would seek external advice from Asima Chowdhury in a way that sidelined the claimant, that she improperly prevented him from contacting staff after the senior leadership meeting, that Miss Dymond said he was difficult to work with, and that Mr Hancock behaved inappropriately when communicating the grievance outcome. The tribunal did find that the claimant was not invited to the Covid-19 People Group for a short period in May 2020 after equality-related matters had begun to feature, but held that this brief omission did not objectively destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.

The tribunal also held that the delay in concluding the June 2020 complaint, the failure to add the appraisal point to that complaint, and the failure to carry out the occupational health-recommended stress risk assessment did not amount individually or cumulatively to a repudiatory breach. It found there was reasonable and proper cause for much of the delay, no agreement to add the further appraisal issue, and a sufficient explanation for not carrying out the stress assessment in the circumstances. Although the tribunal said the matters relied on did form part of the claimant's reason for resigning and that he had not affirmed the contract, the constructive dismissal claim failed because no repudiatory breach was established.