Mr Stevenson in person For the v Respondent — 2025

Mr Stevenson brought a single claim of constructive unfair dismissal arising from his resignation on 29 August 2024. The tribunal treated the case as a last-straw constructive dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, based on alleged breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that he had worked for the respondent since 2011 as production manager, earning £50,000 a year, and that he started new employment on 2 September 2024.

The tribunal accepted that there had been tension in the relationship, but it rejected the claimant's account of the main alleged breaches. It found that Mrs Forbes did not ignore him after the 3 July email about pay rises or after the 25 July email described as a grievance, and that the parties continued to communicate. It also found that the 23 July "clear the air" meeting did not amount to conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, and that the concerns raised about the claimant's demeanour were matters the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to raise.

The tribunal further found that there was no secret campaign to replace the claimant. It held that Mrs Forbes was trying to redistribute duties and recruit additional support because of workload, and that the 6 August email exchange with Mr Patel about looking for someone "at cheaper cost" was contingency planning rather than a repudiatory breach. The printed copy of that email found on the claimant's desk on 27 August was not deliberately left for him, and its content did not itself amount to a breach of contract.

On causation and affirmation, the tribunal accepted that the 27 August discovery was at least a material part of the claimant's decision to resign, but it held that there had been no breach of contract to found constructive dismissal. It also observed that, if breach had been established, the claimant's 25 July email drawing the matter to a close and saying the parties should move on may have amounted to affirmation by the end of July. The claim therefore failed and was dismissed, with no monetary award made.