Claimant was not constructively dismissed as there was no fundamental breach of contract when he had faced a number of investigations and disciplinary processes due to interpersonal issues in the workplace.

The claimant was employed by the second named respondent from 2nd January 2022 as Operations Compliance Co-Ordinator until his resignation in November 2024. The first named respondent is not a legal entity.  Despite being made aware of this the claimant did not agree to having it corrected.  The claim against the first named respondent was therefore struck out.

The claimant suffered from ADHD at the relevant times. The Tribunal noted that there was a difficulty with the claimant who could be rude and aggressive with others. The Tribunal noted this through the evidence with the claimant ‘saying it straight’ and it could cause arguments. The Tribunal noted this during an exchange in which the claimant sighed audibly during the proceedings and said ‘Jesus Christ!’ in an exchange with the Employment Judge. The claimant argued that he could swear and it was part of his ADHD.

Such behaviour had led to disciplinary investigations with the claimant’s attitude being seen as disrespectful and that did not promote an inclusive work environment. This led to a series of grievances being issued.  In February 2024, an investigation took place relating to his interactions as well as the fact that the respondent had noticed a company operating with the claimant’s details and that he could be using the respondent’s property and time to pursue self-employed activities. The claimant was suspended at this point.  During the investigation the claimant stated his self-employed business only operated between 2014-2016 and supported this with records that it had been dissolved. The claimant alleged that management had persuaded witnesses to sign anonymous statements and sought for the investigation to be cancelled. The claimant was given a first written warning as a result of this process.

A further incident took place in August 2024 in which the claimant was alleged to have been disrespectful towards another member of staff and mocked the other member of staff. This went through an investigation culminating in a disciplinary meeting on 8th November 2024.  The claimant resigned on 8th November citing prolonged and distressing events which had made the working environment intolerable. The claimant subsequently brought a claim for constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. The letter did not note that the claimant had received a job offer the previous day as a Health and Safety manager with a higher salary.

The Tribunal held that the investigation and disciplinary processes had been conducted fairly and noted that the respondent had been ‘remarkably lenient’.  Additionally, the support sought by the claimant through the process such as access to an office space and laptop was shown. As a result, there was no fundamental breach of contract to ground a constructive unfair dismissal claim.

In terms of the discrimination claim the Tribunal found that the claimant had been treated fairly by the respondent at all times and there was no prima facie evidence of direct discrimination based upon disability or any failure to provide for reasonable adjustments. As a result, this claim was dismissed.

The failure to follow proper processes in an investigation/disciplinary setting can be grounds for a fundamental breach of contract (usually breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence). This demonstrates the importance of ensuring that those processes are followed and they are conducted fairly.  This could be shown by the second respondent in this case, and it allowed for the Tribunal to clearly find that there was no fundamental breach of contract or discrimination against the claimant.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.