The claimant brought a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.  The claimant’s decision to leave her employment arose from a disciplinary process relating to the misuse of computer equipment in the respondent’s workplace. After an appeal during the disciplinary process, the claimant was given two written warnings as a result of using the computer for personal use (reduced from a final written warning and a general written warning).

The claimant subsequently resigned stating that there were ‘various issues’ as to how she had been made to feel in the workplace and that she had been treated unfairly during the disciplinary process.   The basis of the claim was that the implied term of trust and confidence had been breached.

The Tribunal outlined that for a successful constructive dismissal claim, the claimant must prove:

(a) that there was a breach of her contract of employment, and
(b) the breach went to the core of the contract,
(c) the breach was the reason or principle reason for her resignation,
(d) she did not delay in resigning after the breach occurred, and
(e) in all the circumstances the employer acted unreasonably.

This breach of contract includes implied duties such as the duty of trust and confidence and this can occur either as a sole act or cumulatively.

In weighing up the facts including the claimant’s admission of using the computer for personal use and that another individual had been disciplined, the claimant’s case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

Whilst the claim for constructive dismissal was dismissed, the Tribunal reaffirmed what the claimant must demonstrate for a successful claim.  Employers should be aware that there has to be a breach of contract but that this will include a number of implied duties.  The tribunal referred to the decision in BBC v Beckett [1983] IRLR 43 where it was held that there can be a breach of contract for a disproportionate disciplinary sanction.  Therefore, employers should be aware of this when embarking upon a disciplinary process.

Another point arising from this case is that the respondent did not have a use of computers policy.  Whilst it did not affect the respondent in this case, it demonstrates how having a policy can ensure that employers have greater protection in these situations.