Cases8001488/2024

Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited

4 February 2025Before Employment Judge P O'DonnellScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that none of the matters relied on by the claimant (payment of SSP during sick leave, length of investigation, alleged investigation flaws, lack of urgency with grievance, and not passing second grievance to neutral party) constituted a fundamental breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. The respondent had reasonable and proper cause for all actions taken, which were consistent with its own procedures. The claimant was unhappy about the disciplinary process, but the respondent's conduct was not calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship. No dismissal under s95(1)(c) ERA was established.

Facts

The claimant, an area manager with over 20 years service, was suspended on 26 February 2024 following a complaint of sexual harassment at a retirement party on 22 February 2024. A disciplinary investigation was conducted involving 19 interviews between March and April 2024. The claimant went on sick leave on 22 April 2024 and his pay was reduced from company sick pay to statutory sick pay in accordance with the respondent's policy. The claimant raised two grievances in May 2024, one about sick pay and another about alleged flaws in the investigation. On 28 May 2024, he was informed the second grievance would be dealt with as part of the disciplinary process rather than by a neutral party. The claimant resigned on 11 June 2024, having secured alternative employment on 5 June 2024.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding that the respondent had not breached the implied duty of trust and confidence. The payment of SSP was contractual, the investigation timescale was reasonable, the decision not to interview all 17 additional witnesses was proper, and dealing with the second grievance as part of the disciplinary process was appropriate. None of these matters individually or cumulatively met the Malik threshold of conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship.

Practical note

An employer acting in accordance with its own disciplinary procedures in response to a sexual harassment complaint, including paying only SSP during sick leave during suspension as provided in the contract, is unlikely to constitute a breach of trust and confidence even if the employee is unhappy with the process.

Legal authorities cited

Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd [1985] IRLR 465Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] IRLR 833Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC [2005] IRLR 35

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.94ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c)ERA 1996 s.98

Case details

Case number
8001488/2024
Decision date
4 February 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
No
Rep type
self

Employment details

Role
Area Manager
Service
21 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No