M Robison Mr T Wilson v Represented by: Mr G Millar Solicitor Provident Personal Credit Limited — 2018

The claimant worked for the respondent from 20 November 1985 until 7 April 2017, most recently as an Area Risk Manager. The case arose from a customer visit on 2 August 2016, a later investigation into alleged fraud-related issues, a disciplinary process that ended in summary dismissal on 24 February 2017, and an appeal outcome dated 6 April 2017 that reduced the sanction to a final written warning and reinstated him. The claimant resigned the following day, saying that trust and confidence had been destroyed.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent was entitled to investigate the August 2016 incident, but it found that the way the matter was handled was not appropriate in this case. It noted the lack of advance warning about the investigatory meetings, the refusal to allow the claimant to check his own records when he disputed one customer allegation, the extension of the investigation into earlier visits, and the questioning at the disciplinary hearing, which the tribunal regarded as unusual. The tribunal rejected the claimant's wider conspiracy theory, but it did accept that the process as a whole left him feeling that he had to prove his innocence rather than the respondent having to prove misconduct.

The decisive issue was the appeal outcome letter. Although the appeal reduced dismissal to a final written warning, the tribunal found that the letter did not restore trust: it still described the claimant's credibility as severely damaged, required retraining and weekly monitoring, and placed him back under the supervision of managers with whom he had clashed. The tribunal held that, in the circumstances, there was no reasonable and proper cause for that approach and that it amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it had set out, the tribunal held that the breach was fundamental, that the claimant resigned in response to it, and that he did not delay too long in doing so. It therefore found that he had been constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Compensation was assessed at a basic award of £9,145 and a compensatory award of £11,308.22, after a 25% reduction for contributory conduct based on the claimant's admitted error of judgment in telephoning the agent. The overall award was £20,453.22, with a prescribed element of £4,385 for the period from 7 April 2017 to 26 March 2018.