Claimant v Capital City College Group
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence by failing to implement interim management arrangements after the claimant raised grievances in April 2024. Despite promises from the Principal in May to revert with a plan, the claimant was left in limbo until resignation on 1 August, three weeks before the new academic year, with no clarity on her management line or work site. This failure, without reasonable or proper cause, was a fundamental breach that the claimant did not waive and which caused her resignation.
Facts
The claimant was an English lecturer for nearly 10 years at the respondent's Westminster/Victoria site. From autumn 2023 there were management changes and the claimant experienced difficulties with her new line manager Ms Zaman, whom she found overly prescriptive and professionally undermining. Despite praise for results in November 2023, the claimant raised concerns in December 2023 and February 2024 with senior management. She went off sick in March 2024 with stress and submitted a formal grievance in April 2024. Meetings with the Principal in May 2024 led to promises of interim arrangements and a plan for the next academic year, but this was never provided. Despite union chasing in June, by 1 August 2024 the claimant was three weeks from term start with no clarity on management arrangements or work site, and she resigned.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent fundamentally breached the implied term of trust and confidence by leaving the claimant in limbo without confirming interim management or site arrangements despite promises and union chasing. The constructive dismissal was unfair. Awards were reduced by 25% for Polkey (chance of resignation regardless) for September-December 2024 and 50% from January 2025, and by 25% for contributory fault due to the claimant's disrespectful communications. A 25% ACAS uplift was applied for unreasonable delay in the grievance process.
Practical note
Employers must follow through on promises of interim arrangements during grievance investigations, particularly where delay is anticipated, or risk constructive dismissal claims even if the underlying grievance complaints are not upheld.
Adjustments
25% reduction to losses September-December 2024 reflecting chance the claimant would have resigned before start of term even with interim arrangements in place. 50% reduction to losses from January 2025 reflecting chance she would have resigned after receiving grievance outcome in December 2024.
Claimant partly contributed to difficulties in her relationship with line manager Ms Zaman through disrespectful tone in email correspondence. However, primary reason for dismissal was respondent's delay in dealing with grievance on interim basis.
Unreasonable delay in grievance process. Colleague Ms Begg did not receive partial outcome until 2 December 2024, seven and a half months after raising grievance. Claimant did not receive report until July 2025, fifteen months after raising grievance. No adequate explanation provided for delay.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000435/2025
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- English Lecturer
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No