Cases3300116/2022

Claimant v WKCIC (t/a Capital City College Group)

18 March 2024Before Employment Judge CollWatfordin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£44,068

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalsucceeded

This is a remedy hearing following a finding of unfair constructive dismissal. The tribunal accepted the claimant was constructively dismissed after the respondent completely failed to deal with his grievance, dealing only with the grievance of the technician whose performance formed part of the claimant's complaint.

Facts

Mr Hope, a lecturer aged 49, resigned from Capital City College Group on 29 October 2021 after 17 years' service. This was a remedy hearing following a liability finding of constructive unfair dismissal, partly due to the respondent's complete failure to address his grievance. The claimant immediately sought new employment, securing a lower-paid fixed-term technician role at UAL from November 2021 to December 2022, then a production technician role at the British Museum from January 2023, initially at lower pay but matching his prior salary from October 2023.

Decision

The tribunal awarded £44,068.33 gross for unfair dismissal, comprising a basic award of £13,137.60 and compensatory award of £27,413.64 (including £6,945.02 pension loss). The tribunal rejected the respondent's mitigation arguments, finding the claimant acted reasonably in his job search and could not have obtained additional freelance work. A 15% ACAS uplift was applied due to the respondent's complete failure to handle the grievance. Loss was calculated to 30 September 2023 when the claimant's new salary matched his former pay.

Practical note

When defending mitigation arguments at remedy hearings, respondents must provide concrete evidence that alternative work was available and the claimant would have secured it—failure to do so means the burden is not discharged under the Edward v Tavistock test, even where the claimant is self-represented.

Award breakdown

Basic award£13,138
Compensatory award£27,414
Pension loss£6,945
Loss of statutory rights£575

Award equivalent: 66.9 weeks' gross pay

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+15%

15% uplift awarded due to respondent's complete failure to deal with the claimant's grievance, instead dealing only with the grievance of the technician whose performance formed part of the claimant's grievance.

Legal authorities cited

Shove v Downs Surgical Ltd [1984] ICR 532University of Sunderland v Ms K Drossou UKEAT/0341/16/RNYorkshire Housing Ltd v Cuerden [2010] EAT 0397/09Gardiner-Hill v Roland Berger Technics Ltd [1982] IRLR 498Edward v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2023] IRLR 463British Transport Commission v Gourley [1955] 3 All ER 796

Statutes

Income Tax (P.A.Y.E.) Regulations 2003, Regulation 37aEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.123(4)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.123(1)

Case details

Case number
3300116/2022
Decision date
18 March 2024
Hearing type
remedy
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Lecturer
Salary band
£30,000–£40,000
Service
17 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No