Thanet District Council v. Websper

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a claim of constructive unfair dismissal arising from work-induced stress. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent in various positions within the Council, ultimately in the Recovery Section of the Revenue and Benefits Division. The Applicant was off sick from 26 November 1998 due to work-related stress and sought alternative employment outside the Recovery Section, supported by medical evidence. The Respondent limited alternative posts to within the Revenue and Benefits Division, which the Applicant contended was a breach of contract. The Applicant resigned, claiming constructive dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal, chaired by Mr David Booth, found that the Applicant was dismissed on grounds of capability and that the dismissal was unfair. The Applicant was awarded compensation, which the Respondent failed to pay until ordered by the County Court. The Respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, challenging the Tribunal’s findings on several grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant had a single contract of employment covering all posts held within the relevant grades, or whether each change of post constituted a new contract.
2. Whether there was an implied contractual term protecting the Applicant’s health and safety and entitling him to alternative posts to eliminate health risks.
3. Whether the Respondent breached such a term.
4. Whether that breach was so fundamental as to entitle the Applicant to resign under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act and treat himself as dismissed.
5. If dismissal occurred, what was the reason for it?
6. Whether the dismissal was unfair.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant was off sick due to work-related stress and supported by medical evidence that he could not return to work in the same building or section.
• The Council had a contractual duty under its health and safety policy, incorporated into the employment contract, to offer an alternative post outside the Recovery Section.
• The Respondent’s limitation of alternative posts to the Revenue and Benefits Division breached a fundamental contractual term, amounting to repudiation.
• The Applicant was entitled to accept this repudiation and resign, constituting constructive dismissal.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent denied that the Applicant had been dismissed and contested the unfairness of any alleged dismissal.
• There was no implied term entitling the Applicant to be moved outside the Revenue and Benefits Division.
• The medical evidence did not support the finding that the Applicant could not return to work within the Revenue and Benefits Division.
• The Tribunal’s decision was contrary to the weight of evidence and perverse.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd -v- Sharp [1978] ICR 221	Definition and application of constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act.	The Tribunal cited Lord Denning MR’s judgment to guide its determination of whether the Applicant was entitled to resign due to breach of contract.
Daubney -v- East Lindsey District Council [1977] IRLR 181	Employer’s duty to investigate fully before taking action concerning an employee’s ill health and redeployment.	The Tribunal applied this authority to assess whether the Respondent had properly investigated alternative employment and health risks before restricting alternative posts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Employment Appeal Tribunal carefully reviewed the medical evidence and the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal had found that the Respondent breached an implied contractual term to provide a safe working environment by restricting alternative posts to the Revenue and Benefits Division, despite the Applicant’s medical evidence that work anywhere in that division would cause ill-health. The Tribunal’s conclusion was supported by the evidence and consistent with the principles established in Western Excavating and Daubney, which require an employer to conduct a full investigation before making decisions affecting an employee’s health and employment status.

The Tribunal’s finding that the Respondent’s view of the Applicant as confrontational and the limitation of alternative posts within the same division was misconceived was held to be reasonable and not perverse. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the Respondent failed to discharge its contractual obligation, thus justifying the Applicant’s resignation as constructive dismissal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal by the Respondent is DISMISSED. The Tribunal’s decision that the Applicant was constructively unfairly dismissed on grounds of capability is upheld.

The direct effect is that the Applicant's resignation is treated as a dismissal by the Respondent, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal stands. No new precedent is established beyond affirming the application of established principles relating to constructive dismissal and employer duties towards employees suffering work-related stress.