Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, a Teaching Assistant employed by a Multi-Academy Trust since 2004, suffered a work-related accident on 6 September 2019. After a prolonged absence and movement to Stage II of the Trust's sickness absence policy, she resigned on 28 February 2020. The tribunal found no breach of contract or constructive dismissal, noting the employer's actions were procedural and the claimant's grievances were not substantiated.
Issues
- The claimant alleged that the respondent's actions, including placing the telephone call on speakerphone without consent, failing to properly address her grievance, and moving her to Stage II of the sickness absence policy, constituted a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, entitling her to resign. The tribunal found no such breach occurred.
- The claimant disputed the respondent's decision to move her to Stage II of the absence management policy after four months of absence, arguing it was premature. The tribunal concluded the movement to Stage II was justified as there was no realistic prospect of her return to work within the foreseeable future at that time.
- The claimant claimed her grievance was ignored when she requested a written response. The tribunal found the grievance was properly handled by arranging independent review meetings, which the claimant refused to attend, and that the grievance was not determined prematurely.
Holdings
- The tribunal concluded that the claimant's complaints do not amount to breaches of her employment contract and that she had a totally unjustified sense of grievance.
- The Employment Tribunal determined that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent and that her claim for unfair dismissal is not well-founded, leading to the dismissal of her claim.
Remedies
The Employment Tribunal has determined that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent and that her claim for unfair dismissal is not well-founded. The tribunal concluded that there was no breach of contract by the respondent, and therefore the claim for unfair dismissal must inevitably fail.
Legal Principles
- Adverse inferences from a witness's absence in legal proceedings, as per Wisniewski. The tribunal rejected the claimant's request to apply this principle to Mrs Hooks due to her absence from the hearing and the respondent's credible explanation (early retirement due to ill-health).
- The implied term of mutual trust and confidence in employment contracts, where an employer's conduct must not destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. The tribunal applied this principle to evaluate whether the respondent's actions (e.g., speakerphone call, absence management) breached this implied term.
- The 'final straw' principle in constructive dismissal cases, where an employee's resignation must be in response to a cumulative breach or a final serious act by the employer. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's resignation did not meet this threshold as the alleged breaches were not objectively serious enough.
Precedent Name
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland [2010] IRLR 445 (CA)
- Malik v BCCL [1997] IRLR 462 (HL)
- BCCI v Ali (No.3) [1999] IRLR 508 (HC)
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd. [1981] IRLR 347 (EAT)
- Tullet Prebon PLC & Others v BCG Brokers LP & Others [2011] IRLR 420 (CA)
- Waltons & Morse v Dorrington [1997] IRLR 488 (EAT)
- WE Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook [1981] IRLR 443 (EAT)
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharpe [1978] IRLR 27 (CA)
- Garner v Grange Furnishing Ltd. [1977] IRLR 206 (EAT)
- Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 596
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703 (CA)
- Waltham Forest LBC v Omilaju [2005] IRLR 35 (CA)
- GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Gillian Triggs [2007] UKEAT/0111/07RN
Cited Statute
- Employment Rights Act 1996 - Section 95
- Employment Rights Act 1996 - Section 98
- Employment Rights Act 1996 - Section 94
Judge Name
Employment Judge Gaskell
Passage Text
- the movement to Stage II was correct... there was no expected return within the foreseeable future.
- I find that either individually or cumulatively the matters about which the claimant complains do not amount to breaches of her employment contract.
- the claimant's sense of grievance prevented progress being made.