The claimant was appointed as a Learning Support Officer with the Upper Bann Institute in February 2007.  This was assimilated into a new post of Learning Support Co-Ordinator with the newly established regional college in February 2009.  The general remit of the role was in relation to enrolment and induction of students to determine whether there were any specific learning difficulties and/or disabilities and then devising programmes to assist those students.  The Joint Council for Qualifications issued compulsory standards requiring Specialist Assessors to have a Level 7 qualification from September 2017.  The claimant had Level 5 and the respondent put in place measures to assist the Learning Support Co-Ordinators to obtain the necessary Level 7 qualification.   The claimant had stated that she was worried that she was having to undertake additional higher level duties of specialist assessment and claimed to consistently raise this at job appraisals.  There was never any grievance issued in relation to same.

The respondent stated that raising it at a job appraisal was not sufficient as there was a separate procedure for a job evaluation and it was not formally received until June 2017.  This request was not authenticated, and the respondent stated that there was not enough evidence of a change in her duties or responsibilities.   This decision was appealed, and it was refused as the duties outlined by the claimant were not new and were already within her job description.   In the subsequent job appraisal, which happened to be the claimant’s final one, she stated that the job description had to be rewritten to clearly and accurately reflect all of the duties and responsibilities that are essential.

The claimant gave her intention to resign on 31st August 2018 giving one month’s notice.  She finished work on 30th September 2018 and started a new job on 1st October 2018.    The resignation letter did refer to the failure to address the concern about the job description but there was no mention of alleged overwork which was put forward at the Tribunal.  The respondent also demonstrated that the claimant had telephoned members of staff stating that she was handing in her notice and that there would be ‘repercussions’.   The claimant brought a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal outlined that there must be a breach of contract from the employer and that it must be sufficiently important to justify the employee resigning.  The claimant fell at this first hurdle with the Tribunal outlining that there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s contract of employment.    It contemplated the various types of work that may be carried out and included those that the claimant complained of.  This was especially true considering the fact that the claimant had failed to issue a grievance despite being disgruntled.  Accordingly, the claimant’s case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case reiterates the points that must be proven by the claimant for any successful constructive dismissal case.   It is important to bear in mind that there must be a breach of some contractual term and that it is sufficiently important.   The respondent was resolute in following their procedures to ensure including having the job evaluation and having an appeal.  This was beneficial when it came to a challenge from the resigning employee.  When there is an issue of remit, the contract of employment is the go-to area and employers should use it as the basis for ensuring that no issues would arise as have been seen in this case.

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