Cases2411409/2021

Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

11 March 2024Before Employment Judge CooksonManchesterin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that incidents in 2017 and 2019 (shouting by line manager and grievance outcome meeting) were potentially serious but not sufficient to amount to repudiatory breach. Even if they had been, the claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to work for many months without protest. The events in June 2021 (plant watering, cash incident, resignation meeting) were innocuous and did not resuscitate earlier breaches. The claimant voluntarily resigned and was not constructively dismissed.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

The sex discrimination claims were struck out as out of time at a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Doyle on 18 October 2022. He found it was not just and equitable to extend time to allow the tribunal to consider these complaints.

Facts

The claimant worked as a Band 4 supervisor in gardens and waste management at HMP Styal from June 2015. Over several years she had ongoing tensions with her line manager Mr Tarry and colleague Ms Carney, raising concerns about workload imbalance, alleged hostility, and bullying. There were multiple informal interventions, mediations, and welfare meetings. In June 2021, following incidents involving plant losses, an intelligence report about cash, and a meeting with a governor where no management restructure was offered, the claimant resigned. She alleged 17 breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence spanning January 2017 to June 2021.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed. While two incidents (shouting in 2017 and a poorly-handled grievance outcome in 2019) were potentially serious, they did not individually or cumulatively amount to a repudiatory breach. Even if they had, the claimant affirmed the contract by working for 20 months without protest after October 2019. The June 2021 incidents were innocuous and did not resuscitate earlier breaches. The claimant voluntarily resigned.

Practical note

Employees claiming constructive dismissal on a 'last straw' basis must be aware that long periods of continued work without protest or reservation of position will amount to affirmation, losing the right to rely on earlier breaches unless later conduct is serious enough to resuscitate them.

Legal authorities cited

Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland [2010] ICR 908London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju [2005] IRLR 35Nottingham County Council v Meikle [2005] ICR 1Chindove v William Morrisons Supermarket PLC UKEAT/0201/13/BAFrenkel Topping Limited v King UKEAT/0106/15/LAKaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 978Lochuak v London Borough of Sutton EAT Nov/Dec 2014Logan v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2004] IRLR 63Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.95

Case details

Case number
2411409/2021
Decision date
11 March 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Secretary of State for Justice
Sector
central government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Instructional Officer / Band 4 Facilities and Services Supervisor in Waste, Environmental and in Amenities and Conservation
Service
6 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No