Claimant v Consortium Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. While the claimant complained about Ms Carman-Jones' behaviour and lack of follow-up on her grievance, the respondent applied its policies, appointed a grievance manager, offered mediation, and reasonably inferred the claimant no longer wished to pursue the grievance once Ms Carman-Jones resigned. The possibility of Ms Carman-Jones returning was not sufficient to constitute a fundamental breach; there was reasonable and proper cause for the respondent's conduct and no action calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence.
The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine, driven by a School Resource Management Advisor requirement to cut £1.5 million in costs. The claimant's role as Director of Education was restructured into a new Director of Primary Education role with reduced scope. The redundancy process was fair despite the short two-week deadline, which was reasonable given the need to complete matters by the end of the academic year. The claimant had union representation, was offered suitable alternative employment (the new role), but chose voluntary redundancy after learning of the possibility of Ms Carman-Jones' return.
Facts
The claimant was Director of Education at an academy trust from April 2017 to August 2024. She raised an informal grievance in June 2023 about alleged bullying by Ms Carman-Jones, then a formal grievance in May 2024 while signed off with stress. Ms Carman-Jones resigned in June 2024. A redundancy process was initiated that month, driven by a requirement to cut £1.5 million in costs. The claimant was offered a new Director of Primary Education role but took voluntary redundancy after learning Ms Carman-Jones might return. She claimed constructive dismissal based on failure to protect her from bullying and unfair dismissal arguing the redundancy was a sham.
Decision
Both claims dismissed. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence: the respondent followed its grievance policy, appointed a manager, offered mediation, and reasonably inferred the claimant withdrew her grievance once Ms Carman-Jones resigned. The possibility of Ms Carman-Jones returning was not a fundamental breach. The redundancy was genuine, driven by financial necessity identified by a School Resource Management Advisor, and the process was fair despite a short deadline necessitated by the end of the academic year.
Practical note
An employer does not breach trust and confidence simply by informing an employee of the possibility that a colleague about whom they have complained might return, especially where the employer has followed grievance procedures and the colleague had already resigned; voluntary redundancy prompted by such possibility does not constitute constructive dismissal where there is no fundamental breach.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009977/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Consortium Trust
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Director of Education
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No