Claimant v City Plumbing Supplies Holdings Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that none of the claimant's allegations — vehicle tracking, removal from driving duties, alleged intimidation in the pub, or alleged hostile work environment — either individually or cumulatively amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence when assessed objectively. The tribunal preferred the employer's witnesses as credible and reliable, particularly the Branch Manager Jim Ross, whose explanations for tracking and role changes were operational and justified. The claimant's evidence about the pub incident was contradictory and the complaint came over a year late. Even if there had been a breach, the claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to engage with the employer for nearly a year before raising his grievance, and there was no valid 'last straw' as the unsuccessful grievance outcome was merely the conclusion of a proper internal process.
Facts
The claimant was a driver/warehouse assistant employed from July 2018. After furlough in 2020, his manager began monitoring his vehicle using GPS tracking due to customer complaints about late deliveries and route discrepancies. When the claimant was signed off sick in 2020-2021, another employee was trained to drive the truck and performed better, so on the claimant's return in May 2021 he was moved to warehouse duties. In April 2022, while signed off sick, the claimant encountered work colleagues including his manager in a pub; he claimed aggressive conduct but gave conflicting accounts. He raised multiple grievances which were not upheld, remained signed off until August 2023, then resigned claiming constructive dismissal based on alleged bullying via tracking, retaliatory removal from driving, a hostile environment, and the pub incident.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal preferred the employer's witnesses and found the vehicle tracking was justified by operational concerns and poor performance, the removal from driving was a legitimate operational decision given better performance by a replacement driver, and the pub incident allegations were unsupported and contradictory. The claimant's unsuccessful grievance outcome was merely the proper conclusion of an internal process and not a 'last straw'. Even if there had been breaches, the claimant had affirmed his contract by continuing to engage with his employer for nearly a year before raising complaints.
Practical note
A constructive dismissal claim will fail where the tribunal objectively finds that management decisions were operationally justified rather than retaliatory, where the claimant's evidence is contradictory and less credible than the employer's witnesses, and where the claimant delays nearly a year before raising grievances, thereby affirming the contract.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106421/2023
- Decision date
- 23 April 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Driver/Warehouse Assistant
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No