The Claimant was given a final written warning after which she resigned claiming constructive dismissal. The ET found that the Claimant had been constructively dismissed. The ET also found that Mr H of the Respondent had been either dishonest or incompetent in engaging in the expenses practice that had led to the Claimant’s resignation.
The EAT dismissed the appeal overall. The failure to put to Mr H that he had acted dishonestly amounted to a serious procedural irregularity which meant that the finding of dishonesty had to be set aside. However, there had been no prejudgment of the case and the ET’s conduct of the hearing had not otherwise been unfair. Given that the ET’s conclusions as to unfair constructive dismissal could stand irrespective of the finding as to dishonesty, the decision overall would stand and would not be set aside.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
