Claimant v Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found none of the 12 factual assertions relied upon by the claimant, either individually or cumulatively, amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal concluded the respondent made legitimate business decisions regarding EC4U funding, staff reallocation, and departmental management. The claimant was not demoted, and financial performance concerns were reasonable. The tribunal found the claimant's characterisation of events unsupported by evidence.
The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish the statutory test under s.44(1)(d) ERA 1996. The claimant was not asked to attend work after receiving an NHS COVID-19 ping, and the danger was not situated at the workplace. The tribunal distinguished this case from Goldstein v Herve and found no detriment arising from the subsequently discovered emails, as they did not instruct the claimant to attend work during isolation.
Facts
The claimant, a solicitor and salaried partner heading the respondent law firm's employment department from July 2019 to February 2023, resigned alleging constructive dismissal based on 12 factual assertions. These included: withdrawal of funding for a referral agency (EC4U), removal of a junior solicitor from his team, alleged bullying by the managing partner Ms Rahim, alleged demotion when a colleague was promoted to salaried partner at equal salary, and failure to provide a pathway to equity partnership. The employment department had underperformed financially throughout the claimant's tenure, generating only £60,000 profit over 3.25 years against a target of three times salary costs. The claimant also claimed detriment after receiving an NHS COVID-19 isolation notification in August 2021.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that none of the 12 allegations constituted a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, either individually or cumulatively. The tribunal accepted the respondent's witnesses' evidence that business decisions were commercially justified given the department's poor financial performance. The claimant was found to be an inconsistent witness who misconstrued legitimate management actions. The health and safety detriment claim failed because the claimant was never asked to attend work during isolation, and the statutory test under s.44(1)(d) was not satisfied as the danger did not arise at the workplace.
Practical note
A salaried partner's allegations of constructive dismissal will fail where legitimate business decisions about funding, staffing, and promotions are made in response to documented underperformance, even if communicated poorly, and where the claimant relies on private internal emails discovered post-resignation through subject access requests to establish an alleged ulterior motive.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201751/2023
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Salaried partner and head of employment department
- Salary band
- £80,000–£100,000
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No