Mr A Hillier v Transport UK East Anglia Ltd T/a Greater Anglia: 2217740/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2217740/2024
Between
Mr A HillierClaimantTransport UK East Anglia Limited Trading As Greater Anglia FULL MERITS LIABILITY HEARING AT LONDONRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Nicolle
Members
Mr T Ashby and Mr P de Chaumont-RambertIn person for claimantMr A Bachu (instructed by counsel.) for respondentDate 19 February 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim for constructive unfair dismissal under section 95 (1) (c) and s98 (1)-(4) of The Employment Rights Act 1996 fails and is dismissed.
REASONS
[2]Oral reasons were given to the parties. Either party may request written reasons within 14 days of this judgment being sent to them. Case Number: 2217740/2024
The Hearing
[1]The Tribunal heard the case by CVP over three days from 17-19 February. There was a relatively small bundle of documents and relatively short witness statements. The Claimant gave evidence and called one supporting witness a Mr Usman Edu who gave evidence regarding the Claimant’s working hours. On behalf of the Respondent Khadi, Senior HR Business Partner (Ms Swaray), Ms Kimberly Bucknell, Head of Customer Service Eastern Revenue Protection (Ms Bucknell), Paul Bellinger, Revenue Protection Manager (Mr Bellinger) and David Housden, Senior Train Crew Manager - Conductors (Mr Housden) gave evidence. There was a list of issues with the claim confined to the Claimant’s contention that he had been constructively unfair dismissed and I will refer to the individual incidents upon which he placed reliance in the conclusions section.
Findings of fact
[2]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as Fraud and Investigations Manager from 1 February 2012 until his resignation effective 26 January 2024. Principal allegations within the Particulars of Claim[3]It is relevant to refer to what he sets out in his claim form. He says that he received no recognition for what he had done, company recognition was given to people that achieved less and that HR always investigated him anytime a complaint was submitted even though the person making the complaint should have been investigated because they had done wrong. He refers to circa £500,000 in delay repay fraud he was responsible for recovering but receiving no recognition. He says his face did not fit with HR because he stood up to them when they treated him unfairly and in relation to the pass issue regarding his former spouse he says there was no policy or guidance in place for dealing with such an issue and I will return to that. Code of Conduct dated December 2019[4]Paragraph 5 refers to conflicts of interest and provides that colleagues should not put themselves in a position either inside or outside of work where their personal interests conflict or may be likely to conflict with Greater Anglia’s business. The Claimant’s contract of employment[5]There was uncertainty regarding which contract applied. The only one the Respondent produced was that which appears at page 186 in the bundle and on the balance of probabilities the tribunal finds that that was the applicable contract. It is only necessary to refer to clause 2 which refers to hours of work. The standard working week is 37 hours but it goes on to provide the manager shall work such further hours as may be necessary for the proper discharge of duties under this agreement and shall not be entitled to receive any additional renumeration for work done outside normal hours of work. The relevant chronology pertaining to events relied on by the Claimant Email from Adeel Dar, Gate Line Operator Bishops Stortford of 7 June 2019[6]Mr Dar referred to having been humiliated by the Claimant in front of two revenue officers. He referred to the Claimant having used words to the effect of “so you fucking put a grievance against me” and he says that he was “shocked at this” and that the Claimant went on to say: “Well I don’t care but this won’t be any good for you, you will see” and then he left. Email from Ms Zornitsa Karamfilova (Revenue Protection Officer – Bishops Stortford (Ms Karamfilova ) to Ms Bucknell of 29 June 2020[7]Under a heading of “ongoing issues at work” she referred to an incident where she needed toilet facilities at Harlow Town and says the Claimant walked off towards the ticket office and commented “I’m going to check”. She complained he did not show any concern or care towards her or her colleague leaving them feeling anxious. She referred to the matter as having been characterised by bullying and harassment and referenced previous incidents. Email from Carlos Ofoeme to Ms Bucknell, Mr Williams and Ms Swaray of 29 June 2020[8]He said that would like to take out a grievance against the Claimant on the grounds of discrimination, favouritism, bullying, harassment and being treated differently. That was investigated by Martin Wink, Presentation Production Manager who concluded in a letter dated 13 August 2020 that there is no case to answer regarding the bullying and harassment complaint raised. Mr Wink informed the claimant that day that after a thorough investigation of complaints raised against him by Ms Karamfilova and Mr Ofoeme under the Respondent’s harassment and bullying policy that there was no case to answer. Email from the Claimant to Ms Swaray of 1 July 2020[9]He asked her not to be involved in the investigation as he believed that he had not been treated fairly regarding the investigation that had been undertaken the previous year and he felt that she could be biased in respect of any decision made. Letter to Claimant from Cathy Kirkland, Assistant Area Customer Service Manager (Ms Kirkland) dated 18 March 2022[10]Ms Kirkland referred to a matter the Claimant had raised in which he had stated that Mr Darren Moxom (Mr Moxom), one of his colleagues, had called him a four letter word beginning with “C”. In her letter Ms Kirkland concluded that on the balance of the information submitted and obtained there was clear evidence of offensive and inappropriate language having been used. She could not say with reasonable belief that the messages containing the offensive and inappropriate language came directly from Mr Moxom. She made recommendations regarding a re-brief of company values and the harassment and bullying policy.[11]The Respondent disputes that Ms Kirkland recommended the dismissal of Mr Moxom. The Claimant says that he was advised orally that Mr Moxom’s dismissal had been recommended. Email from the Claimant to Ms Kirkland of 24 March 2022[12]He complained that Mr Moxom had received no punishment for malicious comments and that staff would assume that the allegations must be true, how can he continue to work with these people and that he would appeal the position. That appeal was conducted by Mike Barry, Head of Customer Services West who said there was no grounds for overturning the outcome recommendations reached by Ms Kirkland. Email from the Claimant to Ms Swaray of 25 October 2022[13]He said he would like to withdraw the grievance that he had recently submitted. The Claimant’s attempt to recover the staff travel concessionary pass from his former spouse[14]The immediate issue which preceded the Claimant’s resignation concerned his attempts to retrieve a staff travel concessionary pass which had been provided to his former spouse. He had sent an email to her asking her to return that pass. In an email of 30 April 2023 someone called Clare from the Rail Delivery Group advised the Claimant that it would not be possible to issue a pass to his new spouse until the old card had either been returned or expired which would not be until 12 October 2025.[15]The Claimant clearly considered either option either impracticable or unacceptable given that it would potentially involve a two year delay before eligibility existed for his new spouse to have a travel concessionary pass. Email to Claimant of 7 September 2023 from Bradley James, Fraud and Investigation Officer in the Revenue Protection Team (Mr James) of 7 September[16]Mr James’s email included a draft email of what he proposed sending the Claimant’s former wife. The Claimant replied saying he would remove the last part about legal action but otherwise he was content for it to be sent. It was sent by Eddison Chacon, another member of the Revenue Protection Team, and basically asked for the travel card to be returned.[17]The Claimant’s former wife replied on 7 September 2023 saying that she could not recall the whereabouts of the pass and she had not used it for a long time. It was not until an email from the claimant’s former wife of 5 November 2023 that she took issue with the approach which had been made to her. She said that she was writing to make a formal complaint about the Claimant, that they had separated in October 2017 and that he would have known full well that she no longer had the travel pass.[18]In a partially redacted email of 14 November 2023 from the Rail Staff Travel Group, which is a separate organisation to the Respondent, it was stated that there was no tap data on the card and it had been hot listed on 30 August 2023. Hot listing is a process whereby cards which should not be used are identified so that they can be traced and if necessary appropriate interventions made. The Respondent says that matters concerning staff travel cards are not dealt with internally but on a wider industry basis.[19]As a result of the complaint raised by his former wife the Claimant was called to an investigatory meeting with his manager, Mr Andy Collins on 15 November 2023. That was a brief meeting and there is no need for me to set out matters.[20]On 5 December 2023 the Claimant attended OH and was off sick with a mixture of home and work related stress. He did not return to active employment prior to his resignation.[21]On 4 January 2024 Mr Housden invited the Claimant to an investigatory meeting scheduled to take place on 12 January. In an email of 11 January 2024 the Claimant advised Mr Housden that given the advice from OH he would not be attending. Claimant’s resignation in his email to Ms Bucknell of 26 January 2024[22]The Claimant said: “I am writing to inform you that I am resigning from my position with immediate effect. I feel that I am left with no choice but to resign in light of the recent experiences regarding a fundamental breach of contract, breach of trust and confidence and last straw doctrine. I consider this to be a fundamental/unreasonable breach of the contract on your part. I appreciate the time and energy which you have invested in training me and I believe that the skills I have gained will serve me well in the future. I will do the very best to ensure a smooth transition upon my departure and make sure that all the details and information is left available to the person who takes up my position following my departure”.[23]In response to a question from me during his final submissions regarding the grounds for his resignation said that he gave the matter consideration whilst off sick, he says that all of his hard work and money recovered for the business had received a lack of appreciation. He acknowledged the need for an investigation to have been undertaken regarding the travel pass issue but he was in a situation where he did not know where to go. Mr Housden’s investigation summary report dated 31 January 2024 He set out the background and referred to an interview with Mr Chacon on 30 November 2023 who had explained that he had been asked by the Claimant to contact the Claimant’s former wife to recover her spouse pass. He interviewed Mr James on 8 December 2023 who had said it is not unusual for the fraud team to work on spouse pass cases. Mr Collins informed him during an interview on 31 January 2024 that the retrieval of a spouse pass under the circumstances was outside the work that Mr Chacon and Mr James were normally asked to carry out. He said they have never been asked to contact a spouse to retrieve a pass and this is not something they should have been working on but they are both young and inexperienced and would have done anything their manager asked them to do.[24]Mr Housden concluded that the GA Fraud Team were inappropriately used to try to recover the spouse pass which was a personal matter for the Claimant. He says that references were made to threaten the Claimant’s former wife and pressurise her into returning her spouse pass for the Claimant’s benefit. He says that the Claimant was using the services of Mr Chacon and Mr James for a personal matter rather than doing the right thing by the business. The Law Constructive unfair dismissal
The Law
[25]Section 95 (1) (c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that there is a dismissal when the employee terminates the contract, with or without notice, in circumstances in which he or she is entitled to terminate it, with or without notice, by reason of the employer’s conduct.[26]The leading authority is Western Excavating ECC Ltd -v- Sharp [1978] ICR 221. The employer’s conduct which gives rise to constructive dismissal must involve a repudiatory breach of contract Lord Denning stated: “If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance. If he does then that terminates the contract by reason of the employer’s conduct. He is constructively dismissed.”[27]In summary there must be established first that there was a fundamental breach on the part of the employer; second, the employer’s breach caused the employee to resign; and third, the employee did not affirm the contract as evidenced by delaying or expressly.[28]In so called last straw dismissals there can be a situation where individual actions by the employer, which do not in themselves constitute a breach of contract, may have the cumulative effect of undermining the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. One or more of the actions may be a fundamental breach of contract, but this is not necessary. It is the course of conduct which constitutes the breach. The final incident itself is simply the last straw even if in itself it does not constitute a repudiatory breach. The last straw should at the least contribute, however slightly, to the breach of the implied term of trust and[29]The question of waiver has to be considered. A clear waiver, or simple passage of time, may demonstrate that the employee has affirmed the contract at any particular moment. However, it may be that a final incident would be sufficient to revive any previous incidents for the purpose of showing a breach of the implied term.[30]In cases where there has been a course of conduct, the tribunal may need to consider whether the last straw incident is a sufficient trigger to revive the earlier ones. In doing so, we may take account of the nature of the incident, the overall time spent, the length of time between the incidents and any factors that may have amounted to waiver of any earlier breaches. The nature of waiver is also relevant in the sense of was it a once and for all waiver or was it simply conditional upon the conduct not being repeated.[31]There is no breach of trust and confidence simply because the employee subjectively feels that such a breach has occurred no matter how genuinely this view is held. If, on an objective approach, there has been no breach then the employee's claim will fail (see Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1493, [2005] ICR 481, CA). The legal test entails looking at the circumstances objectively, i.e. from the perspective of a reasonable person in the claimant’s position. (Tullett Prebon PLC v BGC Brokers LP [2011] IRLR 420, CA.)[32]The repudiatory breach or breaches need not be the sole cause of the claimant’s resignation. The question is whether the claimant resigned, at least in part, in response to that breach. (Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] IRLR 703, CA; Wright v North Ayrshire Council UKEATS/0017/13.[33]Omilaju is authority for the proposition that the last straw does not have to be of the same character as the earlier acts, nor must it constitute unreasonable or blameworthy conduct, although in most cases it will do so. But the last straw must contribute, however slightly, to the breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. An entirely innocuous act on the part of the employer cannot be a final straw. The test is objective. It is unusual to find a case where conduct is perfectly reasonable and justifiable, but yet satisfies the last straw test.[34]We must consider causation, the employee must show that he has accepted the breach, the resignation must have been caused by the breach and if there is a different reason causing the employee to resign in any event irrespective of the employer’s conduct there can be no constructive dismissal.[35]We note that where there are mixed motives the tribunal must consider whether the employee has accepted the repudiatory breach by treating the contract of employment as at an end. Acceptance of the repudiatory breach need not be the only, or even, the principal reason for the resignation, but it must be part of it and the breach must be accepted.[36]In the Judgment of Keene LJ at page 12 in Meikle: “The proper approach, therefore, once a repudiation of the contract by the employer has been established, is to ask whether the employee has accepted that repudiation by treating the contract of employment as at an end. It must be in response to the repudiation but the fact that the employee also objected to the other actions or inactions of the employer, not amounting to a breach of contract, would not vitiate the acceptance of the repudiation. It follows that, in the present case, it was enough that the employee resigned in response, at least in part, to fundamental breaches of contract by the employer.”[37]In a case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal heard by a former President, Elias P, Abbeycars (West Horndon) Ltd v Ford UKEAT/0472/07/DA he referred to Meikle at paragraph 34 and he then said: “On that analysis, it appears that the crucial question is whether the repudiatory breach played a part in the dismissal. There must be a causal connection between the repudiation and the resignation; if they are unconnected acts then the employee is not accepting the repudiatory breach. It follows that once a repudiatory breach is established, if the employee leaves then even if he may have done so for a whole host of reasons, he can claim that he has been constructively dismissed if the repudiatory breach is one of the factors relied upon. We respectfully agree with this reasoning. We think it would be invidious for tribunals to have to speculate what would have occurred had the employee been faced with the more limited grounds of legitimate complaint than he had perceived to be the case. Moreover, if there is a repudiatory breach which entitles the employee to leave and claim constructive dismissal, we see no justification for allowing the employer to avoid that consequence merely because the employee also relies on other, perhaps unjustified or unsubstantiated, reasons. The employee ought not to be in a worse position as a result of relying on additional, albeit misconceived, grounds. Accordingly, although the tribunal did not in this case specifically engage with the question of whether there was a causal link between the repudiatory breach and the dismissal, that was no doubt because in the circumstances of this case this appeared not be in dispute. It was never suggested that the employee did not resign because of the list of grievances that he set out in his letter. It follows from the reasoning in the Meikle case that if any of those matters constituted a repudiatory breach, the resignation would be enough to establish constructive dismissal. Having regard to those two authorities, and there are others applying the same principle, it is clear to this Tribunal that when the Employment Tribunal asked itself what the principal reason for the resignation was, it asked itself the wrong question. It should have asked itself whether the breach of contract involved in failing to pay the sick pay was a reason for the resignation, not whether it was the principal reason.”[38]We note the case of Bournemouth University v Buckland 2010 IRLR 445 CA. the head note reads: “In constructive dismissal cases, the question of whether the employer has committed a fundamental breach of the contract of employment is not to be judged by a range of reasonable responses test. The test is objective: a breach occurs when the proscribed conduct takes place.[39]The following stages apply to the analysis of a constructive dismissal claim:(i) in determining whether or not the employer is in fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence the unvarnished Malik test applied;(ii) if acceptance of that breach entitled the employee to leave, he has been constructively dismissed;(iii) it is open to the employer to show that such dismissal was for a potentially fair reason; and(iv) if he does so, it will then be for the employment tribunal to decide whether the dismissal for that reason, both substantively and procedurally, fell within the range of reasonable responses and was fair. It is nevertheless arguable that reasonableness is one of the tools in the employment tribunal's factual analysis kit for deciding whether there has been a fundamental breach. There are likely to be cases in which it is useful. But it cannot be a legal requirement…”[40]Mr Bachu referred to further cases to include Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1997] IRLR 462 to include: “The employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee”. He further referred to Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1981] IRLR 347 to include: The very essence of the breach of the implied term is that it is calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship. In accordance with the judgment in Frenkel Topping Ltd v King UKEAT/01/06/15/LA (unreported) it is a demanding test. Conclusions and discussion[41]We will address the individual allegations set out in the list of issues from the case management order of Employment Judge Anthony, then look at matters cumulatively and then consider what we consider to have been the Claimant’s reason for his resignation. Ms Swaray unjustly investigated the Claimant when a complaint was submitted to the Respondent by his ex-wife on 5 November 2023[42]We find no evidence that Ms Swaray was involved in the investigation. We find that the Respondent acted reasonably good or at least did not act unreasonably, in carrying out an investigation. Indeed the Claimant accepts that it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to carry out an investigation given that a complaint had been raised. This is not a case where the Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. The Respondent was unable to complete the process and reach a decision as to whether the Claimant should be subject to disciplinary proceedings given that he resigned prior to Mr Collins completing his investigation and finalising his report on 31 January 2024.[43]Given the concerns which had been raised, and the arguably inappropriate use of Mr James and Mr Chacon to facilitate the return of his former spouse’s pass, that the Respondent had legitimate grounds to carry out an investigation. Therefore there can be no basis for this investigation constituting a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.[44]We do, however, acknowledge that the Claimant had genuine grounds of uncertainty regarding the correct approach to be followed to retrieve his former spouse’s pass. Whilst during the hearing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent was able to provide further detail as to the approach taken with travel passes the fact that it was not provided in the witness statements supports our view that the Claimant may genuinely have had uncertainty as to what the correct approach was. Nevertheless, that is in effect a separate issue given that we have found that the investigation did not involve a breach of the implied term of trust and Ms Swaray unjustly investigated the Claimant when complaints were submitted against him by Mr Ofoeme and Ms Karamfilova in June 2020 and Mr Dar in July[45]We find no evidence that Ms Swaray was involved in investigating the Claimant. The documents we have seen from investigation reports involve Mr Wink conducting these investigations. We reject any assertion that the investigation per se involved a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It was in our view reasonable given the concerns raised pursuant to the harassment and bullying policy for the Respondent to carry out investigations. More significantly the matters relied on are 4.5 and 5.5 years earlier and we are unequivocally of the view that the Claimant would have affirmed any breaches of the implied of trust and confidence had we found they existed by his continuing employment over such a lengthy period of time. The Respondent did not give the Claimant recognition in the form of awards, vouchers and/or red-letter days for his achievements in recovering fraud related money[46]We find that the Claimant has a genuine subjective sense of grievance that his achievements were not properly recognised. We find that he was clearly a dedicated and hardworking employee and no doubt on occasions would work significantly in excess of his 37.5 hour contractual week. The Claimant also has a very significant subjective grievance about his non invitation to the 2023 legends awards night. Nevertheless, whilst we recognise his subjective sense of grievance we do not consider that when looked at objectively these matters provide grounds upon which, whether in their own terms or cumulatively, are capable of amounting to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.[47]It is significant that no express term relating to payments, bonuses or otherwise is relied on so it is solely on the basis of the implied term of trust and[48]We accept the Respondent’s evidence that only a small number of employees could be invited to the legends award night. We note that the Claimant had previously attended this event.[49]Therefore we find no breach of the implied term but in any event given the passage of time would have found that the Claimant had affirmed the contract. The alleged lack of recognition of the Claimant regarding his recovery of circa £500,000, even if it is accepted that he was solely responsible for that collection which the Respondent disputes, we find affirmation would have applied. The Respondent had an expectation that the Claimant would work in excess of contracted hours. The Claimant’s contracted hours were 37.5 hours a week but the Claimant worked between 13 and 16 hours a day This is in paraphrasing working substantially in excess of 37.5 hours per week. As indicated we consider it probable that the Claimant did work substantial hours, nevertheless as a manager he had a base contractual hours of 37 but was expected to work longer hours than that, further as a manager particularly one who would be travelling significantly around the network as part of his duties he would have had a degree of self-autonomy as to his working hours and would have been able at his discretion to have controlled his hours to a certain degree. We do however accept that there would have been a certain amount of pressure on him to work relatively long hours but nevertheless the evidence provided is no where near sufficient for us to find that he was regularly working excessive hours, had set out his concerns regarding such working arrangements to Mr Collins, Ms Bucknall or other members of management and the Respondent had consistently ignored such concerns. Further we would have found had this been a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in respect of which we have not found that there have been affirmation by the Claimant and his continuing employment. Allegation E. The Claimant being treated unfairly by Ms Sw? in relation to his objection to her involvement in an investigation raised by Carlos ? and Ms ?? ?? in June 2020. As already indicated Ms Sw? appointed Mr Wink to carry out the investigation. We find no evidence to support the Claimant’s contention that she had been bias against him, we accept Mr Bac?? submission that that represents a bear assertion without supporting evidence, as a more general point we should comment that the Claimant’s witness evidence is very slight and whilst the Tribunal gave him a degree of latitude to introduce additional matters which were not in his witness statement nevertheless many of the allegations did not have anything like sufficient supporting evidence for us to reach findings on the balance of probability but in any event had we found this to be a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence we have no doubt that the Claimant affirmed his employment given the passage of four and a half years. Allegation F. Neil Atkin Head of Customer Service telling the Claimant in 2019 that Ms Sw? did not like his management style. We find no evidence to find this allegation proven, Ms Sw? says that she did not tell Mr Atkin that she did not like his management style, in any event five years have passed and again affirmation applies. Allegation G. 25 October 2020 to the Respondent through Ms Bucknall requesting the Claimant withdraw a grievance lodged on 14 October 2022 regarding a Daniel Mansfield and Lee Hackett. We find on the balance of probabilities no evidence sufficient to support this. It may well have been that a personal view was expressed, that it would not be prudent for the Claimant as a manager to be raising grievances regarding his subordinate that would not be an altogether surprising position and even if it had been so expressed we do not consider it could get near on an objective standard to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Allegation H. July 2019 and June 2020 the Respondent through Ms Bucknall telling the Claimant not to bring a grievance against Ms Sw? which she had felt unfair, Ms Bucknall having told him that his career would be finished again we find insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to find this allegation proven but ultimately that becomes almost academic given the passage of four and a half and five and a half years from these events they are in effect far to old they have become stale affirmation would have applied. Allegation I. March 2022 Mr Moxom referring to the Claimant as a four letter word “C” in a group chat he says that a recommendation of Mr Moxom’s dismissal was overturned we find that allegation again unproven on the balance of probabilities as a matter of fact Ms Kirkland in her report did not state that we have no evidence sufficient to find that she had told the Claimant or anyone else orally that dismissal should take effect, but once again two and a half years has elapsed and we find affirmation applies.[50]Given all of those findings both individually and collectively we find that the Claimant did not resign in response to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. In terms of the actual reason for the Claimant’s resignation we find it instructive that his own words referred to a general sense of dissatisfaction with a lack of recognition by the Respondent, that is set out both in his ET1 but in response to a question from the judge there is no evidence either in those documents or in his resignation email of 26 January 2024 that he was resigning in response to an inappropriate and unreasonable investigation regarding his involvement in the communications with Mrs Scotland. We therefore find that the Claimant’s resignation was motivated by a general sense of dissatisfaction regarding his career with the Respondent and also that he was already in touch with Western Trains with a view to a position which he ultimately took up shortly after his resignation. He says he started in March 2024. Final conclusion[51]Therefore for all of those reasons we reject the Claimant’s contention that he was constructively unfairly dismissed and the claim therefore fails and is dismissed. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal under section 95 (1) (c) and s98 (1)-(4) of The Employment Rights Act 1996 fails and is dismissed.