MR FRANK WARREN v MICHELIN TYRE COMPANY [2000] UKEAT 1430_99_2502
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant Mr Marc Jones (of Counsel) Under ELAAS J UDGE COLLINS: This is an appeal against the decision of an employment tribunal sitting at Shrewsbury. The extended reasons were promulgated on 5 th October 1999; the decision of the tribunal was that the respondents had not dismissed the applicant.[2]On 28 May 1998 the appellant had given one months notice of his intention to leave his employment. It is worth noting that with the exception of a short period of time between March 1985 and October 1986, Mr Warren had been employed by Michelin for nearly 30 years. It is plain to us from reading the papers that Mr Warren was a conscientious, hard working and able employee who had given many years of his life to the service of this company.[3]In his originating application, he states the basis of his claim as being constructive unfair dismissal and health and safety problems. Perhaps the most convenient summary of the way in which he put his case before the tribunal is to be found at page 59 of our bundle. There are 8 paragraphs that are summarised in this way: i. diabetes which he contracted in 1997 ii. he was asked to study French in his own time and spent many hours doing it and got nothing in return from his employers iii. he was appointed as a Planning Supervisor on top of his job as a Mechanical Designer and stress because of overwork and pressures at work either triggered off or caused the Project Manager and had health and safety responsibility but was not given the resources to discharge those as he wanted to iv. the company reneged on its promise to promote him. v. the accumulation of unreasonable pressures at work caused a breakdown and depression. vi. there were many breaches of health and safety issues vii. there were attempts to renegotiate his pension agreement. viii. in general terms staff relations were really bad. 'There was no evidence before us that the respondent was in breach of the applicant's contract of employment in any way. There were numerous problems and some health and safety concerns relating to the project on which the applicant was working as a co-ordinator. Within the constraints of a busy schedule the respondent acted properly in dealing with these matters. In part, we have no doubt, because of his already stressed condition, the applicant did not see things that way. He became convinced, almost to the point of obsession, that the respondent was acting in reckless disregard of the health and safety of its employees. That was not the case.'