Claimant v Motability
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. Only two procedural flaws were established: failure to provide interview transcripts and failure to interview MS (a colleague). The tribunal concluded these flaws, individually or cumulatively, were not sufficient to breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant was able to understand and answer allegations against her, and the disciplinary process viewed as a whole was conducted fairly and reasonably. The tribunal also found that the claimant had misunderstood comments by Mr Mitchell regarding the seriousness of the sanction, and there was no evidence he indicated a predetermined outcome.
Facts
The claimant was a Customer Care Manager for Motability, responsible for assessing funding applications. A disciplinary investigation was initiated after it emerged that she had been sending work to a colleague (MS) in a different team, who would draft Decision Records which the claimant would then copy largely unchanged into the system. MS's managers had been aware he was offering help to others and had asked him to stop. The claimant maintained she did not realise this was wrong, that MS volunteered to help, and that she retained ownership of all decisions. She resigned during sick leave for stress before the disciplinary outcome (which would have been a first written warning) was communicated.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim. It found only two procedural flaws: failure to provide interview transcripts from the MS investigation and failure to interview MS during the investigation. These flaws related to potential mitigation evidence rather than exculpatory evidence. Viewed objectively and in the round, the disciplinary process was fair and reasonable, and these isolated flaws did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence or entitle the claimant to resign.
Practical note
Minor procedural flaws in a disciplinary investigation (such as failure to provide all underlying evidence or interview a witness) will not amount to constructive dismissal where the employee can understand and answer the allegations and the process as a whole is fair and reasonable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200997/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Motability
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Care Manager
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister