Cases2225877/2024

Claimant v Total Clean Services Ltd

13 April 2025Before Employment Judge Ms A StewartLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its conduct. The respondent followed its own proper procedures in handling the theft accusation, conducted a fair investigation, accepted the claimant's version of events, and offered alternative work at other client premises. The claimant failed to show that the respondent conducted itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence.

Facts

The claimant worked as a cleaner for the respondent agency from February 2019 to September 2024. After reporting suspicious circumstances regarding security tags to a client manager, the client accused him of theft based on CCTV footage and items found in bins and his locker. The respondent suspended him, conducted an investigation including two meetings, decided not to proceed to disciplinary action and accepted the claimant's version of events. However, the client exercised its contractual right to exclude the claimant from its premises, and the respondent offered alternative work at other locations. The claimant resigned, feeling disrespected by the investigation process.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding that the respondent had followed proper procedures, conducted a fair investigation, and had reasonable and proper cause for its conduct. The respondent accepted the claimant's version of events, offered alternative work, and even paid two weeks' extra pay as a goodwill gesture. The claimant failed to establish a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

Practical note

An employer does not breach the implied term of trust and confidence by conducting a proper investigation into theft allegations, even where the employee has an unblemished record, provided it follows fair procedures and offers reasonable alternatives when a client exercises contractual exclusion rights.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.95(1)(c)

Case details

Case number
2225877/2024
Decision date
13 April 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
cleaner
Service
6 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep