Mr P Boron v XPO Supply Chain UK Limited — 2021

Mr Boron brought a claim for constructive unfair dismissal. He did not attend the full merits hearing on 3 February 2021 and had not provided a witness statement or schedule of loss. The tribunal declined to strike out or dismiss the claim for non-attendance, proceeded under Rule 47, and treated the ET1 claim form and resignation letter as the claimant's witness evidence.

The tribunal understood the claim as a last-straw case alleging breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The claimant relied on two matters: that in December 2018 he had been required or forced to lift heavy items despite medical restrictions, causing further back injury, and that when he tried to return to work in June 2019 the respondent made return difficult by requiring training and medical clearance.

On the December 2018 incident, the tribunal found no evidence that anyone required, encouraged or forced the claimant to undertake full duties. The claimant's previous fit note had expired, he had told management his doctor had advised him to see how it went, he had signed return-to-work paperwork, and on 28 December 2018 he stated that he felt able to undertake full duties. The tribunal noted that management might have taken further steps before allowing full duties, but found the respondent only had the expired certificate, the claimant's account of his GP's advice, and the claimant's own insistence that he was fit.

On the June 2019 attempted return to work, the tribunal found that the respondent did not act unreasonably in requiring occupational health or GP clearance and refresher training before allowing the claimant to return to full duties after a lengthy sickness absence for back pain. The tribunal found that the respondent had made attempts to assist a return to work through occupational health referrals and requests for GP information, but the claimant did not follow up on those options.

The tribunal concluded that nothing said or done by the respondent was without reasonable or proper cause, or was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously undermine trust and confidence, whether the incidents were considered individually or cumulatively. It found no breach of contract, fundamental or otherwise, and dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim. No remedy was awarded.