Jacob Ladley v Transport UK East Midlands Ltd T/A East Midlands Railway — 2025

Mr Jacob Ladley was employed by Transport UK East Midlands Ltd as a Senior Conductor from 4 October 2021. Following a Facebook comment reported on 31 July 2024, he was suspended on 1 August 2024, a fact-finding meeting took place on 7 August 2024, and he resigned on 17 September 2024. The tribunal first dealt with s.111A ERA 1996 and accepted the claimant's confirmation that he was not relying on any without prejudice or protected conversations, so it disregarded that material.

The tribunal identified two procedural failings. First, the fact-finding meeting was not held within 48 hours of notification of the incident as suggested by the respondent's investigation guidance. Second, the claimant was not given the full seven days to review the notes of the 7 August 2024 meeting before they were more widely released. The tribunal also found that the guidance relied on was guidance only, not a mandatory procedure in every case, that the 1 August 2024 meeting was an initial conversation rather than a fact-finding meeting, and that the claimant still had an opportunity to submit comments on the notes.

The tribunal rejected the case that the process had been pre-determined or that the claimant had been labelled a racist by the respondent. It found that references to possible breaches of the Code of Conduct and IT policy were made at the investigation stage to identify the allegations, not as final findings, and accepted evidence that the claimant was repeatedly told no decision had been made. The tribunal also rejected the reliance placed on typographical errors and on alleged union discussions as proof of pre-determination.

Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, including Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju, Kaur, Blackburn v Aldi Stores and Frenkel Topping, the tribunal held that neither procedural failing, alone or together, was sufficiently serious to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. It therefore found no fundamental breach of contract, did not need to consider the remaining issues, and dismissed the unfair constructive dismissal claim. No remedy was awarded.