Claimant v McPherson Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent's actions did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent had reasonable and proper cause for investigating the altercation informally, removing the claimant from the Blackgrange site following Diageo's request, and redeploying him to a road driving role. The email from Diageo's Mr Cai did not evidence that the respondent lied. The conduct was not calculated or likely to seriously damage the employment relationship on an objective assessment.
The claimant resigned with immediate effect and did not work his notice period. As the resignation did not fall within a dismissal under Section 95(1) of the ERA, the respondent had no obligation to pay notice pay when the employee resigned with immediate effect.
Facts
The claimant worked for 20 years as a shunter at Diageo's Blackgrange site. Following a verbal altercation with a colleague on 5 April 2024, Diageo requested the claimant be removed from site. The respondent investigated informally, issued a letter of concern, and offered the claimant retraining as a road driver with support. The claimant went on sick leave due to work-related stress on 13 May 2024 and resigned on 8 June 2024, believing the respondent had lied about who decided to remove him from Blackgrange.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The respondent's actions did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent had reasonable cause to investigate the altercation, accept Diageo's decision to remove the claimant from site, and redeploy him to a road driving role. The claimant's belief that the respondent lied was not objectively supported by the evidence. As the resignation was not a constructive dismissal, no notice pay was due.
Practical note
An employee's subjective belief that an employer has acted improperly is insufficient for constructive dismissal; the tribunal applies an objective test to whether conduct was calculated or likely to seriously damage trust and confidence, and redeployment following a client's request does not ordinarily constitute a fundamental breach.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001700/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- McPherson Ltd
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- HGV Driver/Shunter
- Service
- 20 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep