M Mettle v HCRG Care Limited

An Employment Tribunal need not determine an unargued case that express contractual terms were altered by implication through custom, practice or conduct. This is especially so where the alleged implied term contradicts an express contractual right concerning working patterns or place of work.

In a constructive-dismissal claim founded on breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, the appellate question on a Meek reasons challenge is whether the reasons disclose why the party lost. A conclusion may be open to substantive criticism without being inadequately reasoned. Findings that an employer had reasonable and proper cause for suspension or a temporary non-patient-facing placement were adequately explained on the facts found.

The claimant, a rapid response nurse, resigned and alleged constructive dismissal. She relied on a series of events said to breach the implied term of trust and confidence, including a rota requiring consecutive weekends, suspension following online comments, and a proposed temporary return to work at Gravesend while an investigation continued.

The London South Employment Tribunal rejected the constructive-dismissal claim, together with claims of racial and religious harassment and discrimination, by a judgment issued on 23 May 2024. The claimant appealed on three grounds. The appeal concerned alleged implied contractual rights concerning hours and location, and the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons for holding that the suspension and temporary placement were justified.

1. Appeal dismissed. None of the three grounds disclosed an error of law.
2. The Tribunal was not required to consider whether the claimant had acquired an implied right to work alternate weekends. Her written contract provided that her normal working pattern would be arranged with her manager. No case based on custom and practice, conduct, or any other implied variation had been advanced before the Tribunal. The same conclusion applied to the proposed temporary move to Gravesend. The express contract reserved to the employer a right to require work at a different place temporarily or permanently.
3. The claimant could not introduce on appeal an unargued case that those express terms had been displaced or qualified by implication. In any event, a finding of such a right in relation to the location of work would have had negligible prospects.
4. The Tribunal’s reasons for finding the suspension justified were adequate in the Meek sense. It accepted the manager’s evidence that the online material raised safeguarding, professional-conduct and reputational concerns, and that advice had been obtained before suspension. The EAT accepted that the substantive conclusion might be arguable, particularly because the claimant worked with adults, but an arguably wrong conclusion is not thereby inadequately reasoned. The reasons enabled the claimant to understand why she lost.
5. Although the Tribunal’s brief statement that lifting suspension was not a detriment did not withstand close scrutiny, a fair reading of its factual findings showed that it had accepted reasonable and proper cause for the temporary placement. The claimant could not return to patient-facing work while the investigation continued, there were unresolved team issues, and the role could be performed remotely with travel expenses paid. Those findings adequately supported the conclusion that there was no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2025] EAT 204.
• London South Employment Tribunal: By a judgment issued on 23 May 2024, rejected the claimant’s constructive-dismissal claim and her claims of racial and religious harassment and discrimination.