Mr Christopher Mundy v Medaax Limited — 2025

Mr Mundy worked for Medaax Limited as a Sales Executive from February 2021 and went off sick with work-related stress in late February 2024. During his absence the respondent identified concerns about unprocessed orders, record-keeping, client communications and some emails, and Mr Manoukian first raised those concerns in a disciplinary investigation letter after an earlier welfare call. Mr Mundy brought a grievance about being placed under investigation while off sick; that grievance and appeal were not upheld, and the disciplinary process then resumed.

The tribunal found that the respondent had real concerns and was entitled to treat them seriously. It accepted that the company had a reasonable and proper cause for investigating matters such as outstanding orders, delayed design work, unsuitable emails, and the more detailed concerns that emerged later. The tribunal also found that the respondent was not acting with hostile intent or with a view to dismissing Mr Mundy, and that assurances were given at various stages that his job was not at risk. The final written warning imposed after the disciplinary hearing was later reduced on appeal to a written warning.

The tribunal considered the allegation that starting and continuing the disciplinary process while Mr Mundy was off sick amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Applying the legal test for constructive dismissal, it held that the respondent’s conduct, viewed as a whole, was not calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage that relationship. It noted that it would probably have been preferable to wait until Mr Mundy returned to work, but found that the approach actually taken was not extreme or unusual and did not cross the legal threshold.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that the stress-at-work policy prevented the respondent from starting the investigation, and it found no express breach of contract in relation to the PRP scheme. It concluded that the real cause of resignation was Mr Mundy’s disagreement with the validity of the disciplinary action, not conduct by the respondent that entitled him to resign without notice. The constructive dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.