Background: 

The respondents, two brothers, had established a company and following its dissolution ran the business as a partnership. The business involved other brothers who became employees and assisted in the business through various means.  The claimant, one of these other brothers, was employed from October 2001 until June 2021 as a joiner/general operative.  He worked 40 hours per week at £12.75 per hour. The claimant was never given any written statement of terms and conditions.

An investigatory meeting was held with the claimant (and other brothers) in 2018.  A note stated that Desmond Anderson desired to punish financially the employees. The claimant also states that he was aggressively confronted by another brother where he was told that he was ‘too old’ and the implication made that his employment was not stable.  The investigation related to clocking in and out, but no details were made clear from the minutes. The claimant stated that the only reason he tolerated the workplace was that had he a young child. The advisors involved in the process stated that the claimant ought to be invited to make a grievance, but this was never acted upon.

In July 2018, the claimant was approached by another brother who called him lazy and too old to get a job elsewhere. This was done in the open workplace and could have been overheard. The claimant raised this with Desmond who refused to listen and the claimant was ordered to leave.  The claimant went on sick leave with ‘stress at work’ being cited.

Later in the year, an issue arose about transferring an interest in land to Desmond Anderson. Land issues continued between the claimant and the respondents with Desmond making a comment about the claimant entering a field and if he continued that it would affect his employment.  In May 2021, Desmond Anderson approached the claimant when he was sitting in his car on his lunch break.  He displayed anger stating that he would get ‘Peninsula to sort [him] out’ and he had to remember who paid his wages. The claimant contacted another brother who advised him to contact his GP and he took two weeks off sick.  Notes in evidence stated that Desmond was saying that they would have to get to the claimant urgently and take action based upon him messing up the sale of Paul Anderson’s house.  He stated he cannot run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds.  At the end of June 2021, the claimant resigned citing a repudiatory breach of contract due to his treatment.  A grievance procedure was offered to the claimant but rejected as he stated the offer was not genuine and he longer had trust and confidence in his employers.

Outcome:

The Tribunal considered the evidence and actions in determining whether there was a repudiatory breach of contract for a successful constructive dismissal claim. The Tribunal found that the aggressive nature and words used by Desmond Anderson in May 2021 were the reason that the claimant resigned. They found that these actions had a profound effective on the claimant in terms of his self-confidence and esteem. To this end, the respondent’s conduct was not just seriously unreasonable behaviour but was a repudiatory breach of contract when considered against the policies of the employer. It was a clear breach of the implied term of trust and confidence to approach the claimant in that manner and relating to a matter which was not relevant to the claimant’s employment. It constituted, in the mind of the Tribunal, bullying by a senior member of management and was contrary to the Personal Harassment policy of the employer. Accordingly, the claimant’s claim of constructive dismissal was upheld.

The claimant was awarded a total of £60,949.87 relating to the dismissal and an additional £1,020 for the failure to provide written particulars.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This case provides a rare situation involving what is principally a family business but a family quarrel turns into an employer-employee issue. The aggressive nature in which the claimant was dealt with had to be looked at as an employer-employee issue rather than being treated separately because the two happened to be brothers. There is a divide that has to be realised between familial issues and issues relating to employment. Those two coalesced in this case and led to the claimant, as employee, being treated horribly and that breached the implied term of trust and confidence.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: 
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/