Jana Jones v Swindon Borough Council — 2025

Jana Jones brought only a constructive unfair dismissal claim against Swindon Borough Council. She had worked for the Council from 8 August 2016 until her effective date of termination on 1 April 2024 as Community Meals Team Leader. The tribunal identified a series of alleged breaches relied on as part of the constructive dismissal case, including conflict with Ms Loftus, delay in agreeing homeworking, the instruction to attend the office on 11 May 2023, grievance handling, the handling of her August 2023 letter, disciplinary action, alleged mishandling of the possible closure of the meals service, delays in responding to information requests, and the management of her sickness absence from 7 August 2023 to March 2024.

The tribunal found that most of the underlying events did not amount to breaches of contract. It found that the mediation request over the conflict with Ms Loftus was progressed as far as possible because Ms Loftus declined to take part, that the homeworking request was considered after HR advice, and that the office attendance instruction on 11 May 2023 was a lawful instruction within the claimant’s contract. It accepted that the grievance took too long to resolve and that the disciplinary process also took too long, but held that the grievance process was otherwise proper, that a friend was not part of the grievance procedure, and that the delay was not a calculated act likely to destroy trust and confidence. The tribunal also found that the August 2023 letter being known to Mr Williams was normal practice, that the disciplinary process was not unfounded and was not caused by the letter, and that the community meals service was not actually closing in summer 2023. It further found that the delays in responding to subject access, FOI and other information requests were not established as a repudiatory breach, and that the sickness absence handling, while not ideal, was not enough to amount to a repudiatory breach.

Applying section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, the tribunal held that there was no repudiatory breach, whether individually or cumulatively, and no valid last straw. It also found that the claimant resigned because she had a new job to go to and that she had waited too long before resigning, so she had affirmed the contract in any event. The claim was therefore dismissed, and no award was made.