What was it about?
Constructive unfair dismissal (Guernsey)
What was the outcome?
The Tribunal determined that the Claimant resigned from this employment and was not constructively dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Store Manager. The Claimant resigned by email on 7 November 2019 due to their divorce proceedings and desire to return to the UK to support their children. The Claimant was informed that their notice period was set to expire on 29 January 2020.
However, at the same time, the store the Claimant was responsible for failed an internal audit and had two unsatisfactory visits from the Environmental Health Officer, causing the Respondent to commence a fact-find investigation.
Following the investigation, the Claimant was suspended on full pay. Shortly thereafter, the Claimant’s landlord contacted the Respondent seeking contact details for the Claimant as they had moved out of their accommodation. The Respondent then checked with the Claimant whether they would be attending a further investigation meeting the following day. The Claimant confirmed they would be attending in an email dated 10 December 2019.
However, the Claimant then resigned by email without notice the following day stating the first investigation had been carried out unprofessionally, that their performance would never satisfy the new retail director, and that there had been a witch hunt organised against them.
The Respondent offered the Claimant the opportunity to reconsider their resignation, which the Claimant declined.
The Tribunal considered whether the investigation process in general, and in particular the interviews with the Claimant, were carried out in accordance with the policy and whether they were fair. The Tribunal determined that they were fair and broadly in accordance with policy.
The Tribunal identified that the reason for the investigation was the serious failing at the store highlighted by the Environmental Health Officer.
It was the Tribunal’s belief, therefore, that the Claimant had originally resigned for family reasons. It was also their belief that there was nothing untoward on the part of the Respondent to give the Claimant cause to claim constructive unfair dismissal when they resigned the second time as no breach of contract on the part of the Respondent had been identified. The claim therefore failed.
