Mr M Rahmani v Impact Services (Northern) Limited — 2025

Mr Rahmani worked for Impact Services (Northern) Limited as a security officer from 3 July 2016 until he resigned with immediate effect on 30 May 2024. He said that four matters, taken individually or cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach and constructive dismissal: a February 2024 shift issue linked to the lone-working check-in system, remarks and treatment by a CTM site manager on 15 May 2024, his removal from the site and other shifts, and an invitation to attend an office meeting on 21 May 2024.

The tribunal rejected the February 2024 complaint. It found that the respondent was enforcing a reasonable lone-working policy by requiring contact with the Control Room, that the restriction to multi-manned sites while the app or phone issue was unresolved was a reasonable management response, and that there was no breach of contract. In any event, the claimant continued working for about three further months, which the tribunal treated as affirmation of the contract.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had not proved that CTM site manager Mark Clynes made racist remarks on 15 May 2024, and that in any event Mr Clynes was not the respondent’s employee. Applying the Moores v Bude-Stratton Town Council factors, the tribunal held there was no basis for vicarious liability. The respondent’s removal of the claimant from site was treated as a response to the client’s instruction and the claimant’s own request not to return that night, while the later invitation to a meeting at head office was described as innocuous and consistent with the express third-party agreement in the contract.

On the constructive dismissal analysis, the tribunal applied section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju, Kaur and the related authorities cited in the reasons. It held that none of the alleged breaches amounted to a fundamental breach, that the final alleged act was not a valid last straw, and that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed.