Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

1.

(i)

The claimant, by a claim form presented to the tribunal on 26 October 2014, alleged that he had been constructively dismissed by the respondent company.

(ii)

He did not appear at the hearing. The tribunal is satisfied that he received Notice of Hearing, that he had also been aware for some time, from Records of Proceedings relating to previous Case Management Discussions in the matter, of the dates fixed for hearing, and that he had ample time to prepare and submit any written representations if he wished.

(iii)

On the morning of the hearing, the tribunal delayed starting the hearing for half an hour, but no communication was received from the claimant giving a reason for his non-attendance.

2.

(i)

The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim. Before doing so, it considered the contents of his claim form and other documentary evidence. It also heard sworn evidence from Mr Eamonn Jennings, the respondent company's chief technology officer, who was the claimant's line manager.

(ii)

The tribunal also had regard to the relevant law relating to constructive dismissal. In order to establish this an employee must show that there has been a fundamental breach of the contract of employment by the respondent, that the employee accepted the breach and resigned because of it, and that he or she did not waive the breach, and thus affirm the contract of employment. As far as causation is concerned, there may be more than one reason why an employee resigned his or her position, and in such circumstances, the tribunal must decide whether the repudiatory breach played a part in the resignation. Where there is more than one reason why an employee leaves a job, the correct approach now is to examine whether any of them is a response to the breach, not to see which of them is the effective cause. (See: Wright -v- North Ayrshire Council [2014] IRLR 4).

3.

(i)

Here, we are entirely satisfied that the claimant was not constructively dismissed. There is no evidence that he was "singled out" or "harassed", as alleged, by senior management.

(ii)

He resigned at a time when management had justifiable concerns about his performance, and when he was faced with investigatory meetings about this. This seems to us the most likely reason for his resignation.

(iii)

There is no evidence that a resignation letter was fabricated by management, as again alleged. He has latterly alleged that management was guilty of breaches of the Working Time Regulations. This was not mentioned in his claim form, and there is no indication of when such alleged breaches came to his notice.

4.

The claim is dismissed.