Ms Beech, Pupil barrister (second six) For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a herdsman at the respondent family farm, brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim arising from a December 2018 disciplinary process and subsequent events. The tribunal identified the main complaints as the handling of the disciplinary process, the disciplinary meeting on 11 December 2018, the absence of an express appeal in the warning letter, Henry Hurrell's role on appeal, a failure to hold a return-to-work meeting, and the events of 22 March 2019.

The tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to raise disciplinary concerns about the claimant's conduct. Those concerns included moving animals for a third party without express permission, cattle welfare issues relating to the claimant's dogs and historic handling of livestock, and misuse of the farm truck. The tribunal accepted that the initial process was clumsy and did not meet best practice: the claimant was not given reasonable notice that the 11 December meeting was disciplinary, and the warning letter did not mention an appeal. However, the tribunal held that these procedural flaws did not amount to a repudiatory breach because the respondent was trying to address genuine concerns and improve the working relationship, not destroy trust and confidence.

On the appeal, the tribunal found that Henry Hurrell conducted it as a rehearing and that the claimant had a full opportunity to advance his case. The tribunal accepted that Henry Hurrell was not independent, but found that in a small family business there was no obligation to use an external appeal manager, and that the written warning fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaint about the return-to-work issue, noting that the respondent wrote on 7 March 2019 offering to meet about support for his return and that no meeting was requested by the claimant.

As to 22 March 2019, the tribunal found that Mr George Hurrell did not shout at the claimant at the morning meeting, that there was conflict in the cowshed because the claimant had chosen to prioritise feeding a calf rather than completing the loader task, and that the claimant was not assaulted in the farm office. Considering the allegations separately and cumulatively, the tribunal concluded that there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.