Ms E Walker, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

Mr Swan alleged that changes to his role, his treatment by managers, and the handling of his grievances and working arrangements amounted to a constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that he was not dismissed. It held that his March 2019 move into the Estates and Sustainability Programme Manager role was not a demotion back to Band 7, but part of a genuine consultation and reorganisation linked to the Trust's energy and sustainability strategy.

The tribunal rejected the claims that he had been excluded from leadership or given only minor work, and found that the office location and the Estates Department Management Technical Escalation Structure did not show that his role had been subordinated to the Estates Manager. It also found that the complaint about the grievance raised against Keith Hayward had been handled appropriately, and that Mr Swan later chose not to pursue it. The tribunal accepted that Mr Rowlan and the Estates Manager had become strained, but did not accept that the evidence showed a course of marginalisation, bullying, or ostracism.

On the events of January 2020, the tribunal accepted that Mr Rowlan's handling of the request to work from home and the request for time off in lieu was not beyond criticism, but held that these matters did not amount to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the meeting on 29 January 2020 was an informal meeting convened under the Trust's procedure, that the concerns raised in it had a factual basis, and that it was not a repudiatory breach. Applying the approach in Kaur, the tribunal held that the 29 January meeting was the last act relied on, but it did not entitle Mr Swan to resign and treat himself as dismissed. As a result, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and the listed remedy hearing was vacated.