Leaney v Loughborough University

10 Jan

Facts

With more than 40 years of experience, the claimant was a university lecturer. He refuted a complaint made against him by a student. He was informed on June 29, 2020, that the institution was unable to investigate the matter further. A period of bargaining between the solicitors ensued. On September 28, 2020, the Claimant tendered his resignation with notice, alleging constructive unjust dismissal. The notification that the Claimant got on June 29, 2020, was cited as the "final straw." The tribunal determined that, in the three months between June 29, 2020, and his departure on September 28, 2020, he had affirmed any breach due to the prolonged period it took him to resign in response to the Respondents breach.

Held

The EAT handed over the finding issue for reconsideration because it disapproved of the tribunal's the approach, holding:

Tribunals evaluating whether affirmation has occurred should not lay undue emphasis on the passage of time. It is important to consider all relevant facts and conditions.
When there has been a delay, the length of service is an important consideration in determining whether the contract has been upheld. However, it is delicate in reality. Long-serving employees may logically wait longer to evaluate their position (without necessarily being confirmed) before leaving a stable work, but each situation must be considered individually.
Negotiation time before to resignation matters. An employee may engage in negotiations in an effort to give the company one last chance to "put things right" before quitting. If you put off doing something, it could not be considered affirmation.
In this instance, the tribunal misfocused on events that never occurred—the claimant did not postpone his resignation due to student examinations, nor did he indicate that he was working against his will—which, had they occurred, may have diverted attention from affirmation. Rather, they ought to have concentrated on the actions that could have been considered affirmation.

Comment

The EAT held the tribunal was not correct to conclude that a contract of employment had been affirmed, following a ‘last straw’ breach by the Respondent and when a Claimant waited three months to resign.