Lucy Griffiths v Gloucestershire County Council

In a constructive unfair dismissal claim founded on the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the tribunal must determine the material factual allegations said to constitute the breach and evaluate whether the facts found amount to such a breach. It is insufficient to state conclusions without explaining why material allegations were accepted or rejected.

Evidence arising after resignation may be probative of what was occurring before resignation. It must be assessed for that purpose even though it could not itself have caused the employee to resign. A finding on an unargued factual basis, unsupported by or unexplained in the evidence, may also render the reasons inadequate.

The Claimant, a registered manager of a social-care service, resigned and brought a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. She alleged that her authority had been systematically undermined, that management had failed to address her concerns, and that the Respondent had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

Employment Judge Hargrove dismissed the claim in a decision sent on 28 January 2021. The Claimant appealed, contending that the Judge had failed to give adequate reasons on material factual matters, including evidence that performance concerns were later presented as conduct allegations, and had wrongly inferred that her grievance was prompted by her suspension.

The central issue was whether the tribunal had made and explained the factual findings necessary to determine the alleged contractual breach.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons were inadequate and the decision was set aside. The case was remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
2. In a constructive unfair dismissal claim based on the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the tribunal must determine what occurred in fact, make findings on the employee’s material allegations, and then decide whether the established facts amount to a fundamental contractual breach. This differs from an ordinary unfair dismissal assessment focused on the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct.
3. The Judge identified short conclusions on matters central to the alleged breach, including the asserted conflict of interest, office arrangements, the appointment of the strategic review manager, and alleged undermining of the Claimant’s authority. However, the reasons did not explain how or why those conclusions were reached. The Tribunal had not made the factual determinations and evaluation required by the detailed list of issues.
4. The conclusion that the Claimant raised her grievance only after, and because of, suspension was neither contended for nor adequately explained. It did not address the evidence that her resignation letter, written before she knew of any possible suspension, stated an intention to pursue both a grievance and constructive dismissal claim.
5. Although events after resignation could not themselves have caused the resignation, the evidence that matters initially treated as performance concerns were later enlarged into conduct allegations could be probative of the situation before resignation. The Judge recognised that potential relevance but did not analyse it. The failure was material to credibility and to the Claimant’s case that her existing perception of management conduct was correct.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal and remitted the constructive unfair dismissal claim for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal: [2022] EAT 195.
• Employment Tribunal, Bristol: Employment Judge Hargrove dismissed the Claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim in a decision sent on 28 January 2021.