Mr M Stringer v Sondrel Ltd — 2020

Mr Stringer was employed as an engineering consultant from 3 February 2014 and worked on Project B under Mr Miles. The tribunal found that Mr Miles repeatedly pressed the team for daily checklists and status updates, and that on 20 July 2017 he swore at the claimant during a team call when there was a problem with the claimant's blocks. The claimant then asked to be removed from Project B, and that request was followed by discussions between Mr Miles and Ms Cullen about performance management and possible dismissal.

The tribunal did not accept that the respondent had created a generally hostile working environment or that the reporting regime as such imposed an unreasonable workload, and it accepted that the respondent had business reasons for not moving the claimant to another project. It also found only two specific incidents of verbal abuse proved: one where CM shouted at the claimant and one where Mr Miles swore at him. However, it found that the respondent singled the claimant out for objectives and performance management without giving him a reasonable opportunity to adapt to the revised reporting regime and without reasonable grounds for treating him differently from other team members.

The tribunal found that the performance management process was introduced to force the claimant back onto Project B after he had raised concerns about Mr Miles and the workload, rather than as a reasonable management tool. It found that the claimant received a paper copy of the draft objectives before the meeting on 27 July 2017, and that he resigned in response to being told he was being put under HR objectives. On that basis, the tribunal held that he had been constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. It rejected conduct and capability as fair reasons for dismissal, found no contributory conduct or Polkey deduction, and directed that remedy be determined at a later hearing.