| An employee who had been employed since 1997 | | | | However, the employer appealed to the Employment |
| tried unsuccessfully to claim that she had been | | | | Appeal Tribunal. The main issue considered in the |
| unfairly and constructively dismissed in the case of | | | | appeal was whether or not the tribunal had erred in |
| Hughes v Gibson and Others (trading as Blanford | | | | concluding that the letter of 29 October was the final |
| House Surgery) [2006]. | | | | act required to bring into effect the 'last straw' |
| In early June 2004, a number of comments were | | | | principle, even though she had reaffirmed her |
| made in the presence of the employee that led her | | | | employment contract when she withdrew her |
| to indicate to her employer her intention to resign | | | | resignation on the 28 June. |
| from her position. On 4 June 2004, the employee's | | | | The appeal was allowed due to the fact that in order |
| practice manager informed her in writing that her | | | | for the 'last straw' principle to be applied, there has |
| resignation was not accepted. Subsequently, on 28 | | | | to be more than one act which is capable of being |
| June, she withdrew her resignation. | | | | complained of. The severity of the acts complained |
| She filed a grievance against her employer and on 29 | | | | of is not that important, as long as cumulatively they |
| October she received a letter from management | | | | amount to a breach of contract. |
| regarding her complaints. The letter acknowledged | | | | Because the employee had reaffirmed her contract |
| some of her complaints, informed her that some of | | | | when she withdrew her resignation, the tribunal had |
| her complaints could not be made out, and told her | | | | been incorrect to apply the 'last straw' principle. The |
| that there would be a meeting the following week in | | | | retraction of her resignation had prevented any of |
| which the issues highlighted in her grievance could be | | | | the acts prior to 28 June being considered, which left |
| further discussed. | | | | only one act which was capable of being complained |
| Shortly after the receipt of the letter, she informed | | | | of - the letter of 29 October. Therefore there was |
| management of her intent to seek a hearing before | | | | only one act in the series of events required for the |
| an employment tribunal. On 29 November, she | | | | 'last straw' principle, meaning it could not be applied |
| resigned from her position, claiming that she had been | | | | here. It was held that the letter on its own did not |
| unfairly and constructively dismissed. The tribunal held | | | | amount to unfair or constructive dismissal. |
| that the letter of 29 October had not handled the | | | | If you require further information please contact us |
| employee's grievance appropriately. The tribunal ruled | | | | at or Visit |
| that:- | | | | © RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does |
| § the letter had been part of a series of events | | | | not provide a comprehensive or complete statement |
| § there had been a breakdown in trust and | | | | of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it |
| confidence between the employee and the employer | | | | constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight |
| § the employee had in fact been unfairly and | | | | general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be |
| constructively dismissed. | | | | sought in relation to particular circumstances. |