Case 4107972/2021 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4107972/2021 HEARING HELD ON TO JULY AND AUGUST 2021 BY CLOUD VIDEO PLATFORM (CVP)10 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE CAMPBELL Mr G Petrie
The claimant resigned on 8 January 2021 and alleged that he had been constructively unfairly dismissed following events after a site incident on 27 October 2020. The tribunal found that the claimant's case was based on an alleged breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, including the respondent's handling of discussions after 6 November 2020 and its failure to offer a settlement proposal.
The tribunal held that the protected conversation on 6 November 2020 was inadmissible under section 111A ERA and could not found the alleged breach. Looking objectively at the respondent's conduct after that date, the tribunal found that Mr Starrs was reacting to a developing situation, trying to find a solution to the claimant's benefit, and was entitled to stop pursuing a termination package once work had been found for the claimant.
The tribunal also found that, even if there had been a breach, the claimant had not resigned sufficiently promptly. The events relied on had occurred mainly between 30 October and 10 November 2020, while the resignation took place nearly two months later and after the claimant had legal advice. The claimant was therefore not constructively dismissed and the claim was dismissed.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was presented as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the respondent had not breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, that the claimant had not resigned sufficiently promptly in response to any alleged breach, and that he was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.