EAT Constructive Dismissal. The claimant was employed as an engineer by the respondent. Following disciplinary proceedings in respect of failure to follow engineering procedures he was dismissed. He appealed. The appeal was successful to the extent that he was demoted instead of dismissed. He appealed unsuccessfully to the next level of appeal. He resigned in response to the demotion. At the ET it was agreed by counsel for each party that if there was a dismissal, it was unfair. The ET found that there had been a constructive dismissal, which was unfair. It found that the claimant had contributed to the extent of 50% by his behaviour. The respondent sought to argue that the ET erred by finding that the term of trust and confidence in the contract of employment had been breached by demotion, when the claimant had at first been dismissed. It argued that the finding of breach in respect of the demotion was perverse. The respondent argued that the ET had erred in failing to ask itself if the demotion was within the range of reasonable responses that an employer might make, and that it should have distinguished the case of Bournemouth University v Buckland [2010] EWCA Civ121. It argued that the case of Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39 was authority for the proposition that the respondent could rely on the dismissal of the claimant, and that dismissal should be tested by the range of reasonable responses test.
Held: the ET did not make any error of law. The respondent sought to raise points not raised before the ET, giving no good reason why that should be allowed. In any event, the respondent’s grounds of appeal did not disclose any errors of law
Lady Stacey
[2015] UKEAT 0016 – 15 – 1112
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565090