The claimant complained that she had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent, by way of constructive dismissal, arising out of the respondent’s handling of a grievance raised by her relating to an alleged incident of bullying and harassment. The claimant was a Practice Manager at a GP surgery who initially raised a number of issues in regard to another employee’s conduct. She claimed she felt unsafe and threatened due to the aggressive conduct of said employee. Based on legal advice from the BMA the respondent did not initiate disciplinary proceedings against the other employee, who then subsequently made a formal grievance based on the conduct of the claimant. Mediation between the two parties was considered, however disciplinary action was taken against the other employee in the form of a verbal warning. A ‘clear the air’ type meeting was arranged which the claimant failed to attend and a short time later a sick line letter and then a letter of resignation were sent to the respondent.

No case was made that the claimant had left for some other reason than the alleged breach of her contract of employment. Therefore, it had to be demonstrated that there was a breach of contract by the employer and it was fundamental. In finding an absence of a fundamental breach the tribunal emphasised that the respondent ‘dealt with the matter promptly and reasonably in genuinely trying to secure [the claimant’s] return to work’. The respondent’s adherence to its disciplinary procedure as well as attempts to hold a conciliatory meeting of all parties contributed significantly to this finding.


Practical lessons from this decision

The tribunal’s decision that the respondent had acted reasonably was based significantly on the attempts to facilitate a meeting with all parties, utilisation of the disciplinary code and also the reliance on legal advice from the BMA. The considered, methodical approach of the respondent in not rushing into rash disciplinary procedures and taking stock of the whole factual background further enhanced its profile as a ‘reasonable employer’.