In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, employed since 16 December 2013, was appointed to a Product Manager role in April 2020. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence, including the role-mapping exercise prepared by Mr Robinson, as good evidence of what the role involved in practice: most time was spent on development and delivery, with comparatively little time on strategy and management. Although the claimant relied on the written Product Manager job description and said he had expected responsibility for the “what” of product requirements, the tribunal found the day-to-day role in Carrier Services was already more delivery-focused than the claimant contended.

In September 2020 the respondent introduced a new Product Operating Model intended to separate product management from technical development and delivery. The tribunal found the claimant was told on 1 September 2020 that his job title might change but that his responsibilities would not. It found that the later RAPID materials and the annotated job description explained how the role fitted within the new model, and that the practical change to the claimant’s role was limited to some decision-making responsibility on a narrow aspect of the role. By February and April 2021 the claimant knew, or should have known, how the respondent viewed his role, although he remained dissatisfied and asked for his title to be changed back or for a different role or redundancy.

The tribunal held that the 15 September 2021 email attaching a Technology Product Owner job description did not amount to a new substantive change to the claimant’s role; it was a further restatement of the respondent’s existing position. Applying the constructive dismissal principles in Western Excavating and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the tribunal rejected the argument that the respondent’s conduct was a repudiatory breach. It found the contractual term allowing the respondent to ask the claimant to do work within his capabilities and to notify him if his job title needed to change meant the changes fell within the contract. The claimant resigned on 20 September 2021, but the tribunal held he had not been constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and the remedy hearing was vacated.