In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that Mr Ciocoiu was not constructively dismissed. Applying the objective trust-and-confidence test from Malik and Omilaju, it held that the respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, did not amount to a repudiatory breach. On the facts, the claimant had accepted working at Stockley from December 2015, the journey time was broadly similar to Craven House, and any extra mileage was dealt with under the respondent's Additional Travel policy rather than by treating the change as an uncompensated business travel issue.

The tribunal rejected the complaints about line management, the delay in processing the MBA sponsorship application, the 2017 performance rating, the handling of leave and timesheets, and the disciplinary investigation into the claimant's alleged absence on 20-24 March 2017. It accepted that the performance rating of partially achieved was justified, that the grievance appeal later resulted in a rating of Good, and that there was ample basis for the investigation. Although the claimant resigned on 4 October 2017 after an interview was cancelled and while the investigation was ongoing, the tribunal held that he had not been dismissed within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, so the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims failed.

The money claims also failed. The tribunal found no unpaid holiday pay and no outstanding wages or contractual sums, including travel costs, because the claimant had not completed the required Additional Travel application for the second year and the first year's payment had been made. It rejected the breach of contract claim, and in any event recorded that the health-damage aspect was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction under Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. No monetary award was made.