Mr Ian David Black v & Facilities Management Limited — 2024

Mr Ian David Black was employed by Bellrock Property & Facilities Management Limited as an electrical technician at Queensway House, East Kilbride, and had been transferred to Bellrock under TUPE on 1 April 2021. The tribunal recorded that the issues were whether Bellrock had committed a fundamental breach of contract, whether the claimant resigned in response to that breach, and whether he delayed so long before resigning that he affirmed the contract. It also noted that the claimant was not seeking a compensatory award because he had started work for a new employer on 11 September 2023.

The tribunal rejected the case that Mr Hattie's management of the site amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the reduction in overtime, the change so that work was often done by one person rather than two, the move from out-of-hours work to office-hours work, the daily 3.45 p.m. meetings, and the use of the Concerto system were reasonable management decisions in the context of Bellrock's contract with HMRC. It also held that the 1 February 2023 exchange between Mr Hattie, the claimant and Mr Greenan, including Mr Hattie's raised voice and agitation, was not enough by itself to establish a fundamental breach, and that the office move and absences from site were not material issues.

The tribunal then considered the claimant's complaint that Bellrock did not properly deal with the concerns raised after the 3 February 2023 meeting with Mr Pollock. It accepted that there had been an attempt to address the matter informally, that Mr Pollock proposed further meetings, and that there was an impasse because the claimant wanted a joint meeting with Mr Greenan while Mr Pollock wanted separate meetings. Even if Bellrock's failure to take the matter further amounted to a breach, the tribunal found that the claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to work in the hope that things would improve and by not resigning until months later. It therefore held that he was not constructively dismissed and dismissed the claim.