In-house solicitor loses constructive dismissal claim against RMT union
An employment tribunal dismissed all 133 claims brought by an in-house solicitor against the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, including allegations of assault, constructive dismissal, and disability discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #workplace-companion
- #protected-disclosure
- #long-term-sickness
- #capability-procedure
- #sick-pay-cessation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an in-house solicitor by the RMT from 7 August 2013 until he resigned on 24 November 2017.
- The claimant alleged two assaults by his line manager, Karen Mitchell, in January and August 2015, which the tribunal found did not occur.
- The claimant alleged that Ms Mitchell instructed a trainee to alter minutes of a meeting to remove a date, which the tribunal found did not happen.
- The claimant was absent from work due to stress and depression from November 2015 until his resignation.
- The claimant brought five sets of tribunal claims comprising 133 individual claims, all of which were dismissed.
- The claimant resigned claiming constructive dismissal, but the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the employer.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as in-house employment solicitor for the RMT.
-
Second alleged assault
Claimant alleged Ms Mitchell grabbed him by the throat in a pub; tribunal found this did not happen.
-
Meeting about workplace companion
Claimant discussed acting as a companion for a colleague; Ms Mitchell told him not to due to conflict of interest.
-
Confrontation and start of sick leave
Heated argument between claimant and Ms Mitchell about the companion issue; claimant left work and began long-term sick leave.
-
Formal grievance submitted
Claimant submitted detailed grievance including assault allegations and objections to investigation process.
-
Claimant interviewed by Mr Carey
First investigation meeting; claimant raised RW matter for the first time.
-
First tribunal claim lodged
Claimant lodged first ET claim alleging detriment for being a workplace companion and health and safety.
-
Croy reports issued
Mr Croy concluded claimant's allegations were false and recommended disciplinary action against claimant.
-
Disciplinary hearing invited
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing; postponed after claimant provided medical evidence of unfitness.
-
Sick pay cessation notified
Claimant informed that his occupational sick pay would cease on 9 November 2017.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant resigned citing breach of trust and confidence, listing various alleged detriments.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no assault, no protected disclosure, and no constructive dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal, and whether the employee had suffered detriments due to protected disclosures, workplace companion rights, disability, or victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the claimant, an in-house solicitor with four years' service.
The key reasons were:
- The tribunal found that the alleged assaults by the line manager did not occur.
- The claimant's grievance and subsequent complaints were not protected disclosures as they were not made in the public interest.
- The employer's actions, including the cessation of sick pay, did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract.
- The claimant was not subjected to disability discrimination or victimisation.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To succeed in a constructive dismissal claim, you must show that your employer committed a fundamental breach of contract that left you with no choice but to resign.
- Allegations of assault or misconduct must be supported by credible evidence; tribunals will scrutinise the facts carefully.
- A protected disclosure must be made in the public interest, not just a personal grievance, to qualify for whistleblowing protection.
- Lengthy and complex litigation can be risky if claims are not well-founded, as costs and time can be substantial.
A case of multiple allegations that did not stand up to scrutiny
This case involved an in-house solicitor who brought a staggering 133 separate claims against his employer, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT). The claims ranged from constructive dismissal and disability discrimination to allegations of assault by his line manager. After a lengthy hearing spanning over 20 days, the tribunal dismissed every single claim.
The claimant had been off work with stress and depression since November 2015, following a dispute about acting as a workplace companion for a colleague. He alleged that his line manager had assaulted him on two occasions, but the tribunal found that these incidents did not happen. Similarly, claims that the manager instructed a trainee to alter meeting minutes were rejected.
What the employer did right
The RMT followed a proper process in investigating the claimant's grievances and disciplinary matters. They obtained medical evidence and postponed a disciplinary hearing when the claimant was unfit to attend. The tribunal accepted that the cessation of sick pay after two years was in line with the employer's policy and did not constitute a breach of contract.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal found that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed because there was no fundamental breach of contract by the employer. His resignation was a voluntary decision, not a response to any wrongdoing by the RMT. Additionally, the claims of protected disclosures failed because the matters raised were personal grievances, not disclosures in the public interest. The disability discrimination claims also failed as the tribunal found no evidence of unfavourable treatment arising from his disability.
This case serves as a reminder that bringing multiple unsubstantiated claims can be a risky strategy. Employees considering similar action should ensure they have strong evidence and that their complaints fall within the legal definitions of protected disclosures or discrimination.
Similar cases
Warehouse operative dismissed after whistleblowing and long-term sick leave: victimisation and disability discrimination
A warehouse operative with 8 years' service was unfairly dismissed, victimised, and discriminated against after reporting safety issues and then being absent due to work-related stress. The tribunal awarded over £16,000 in compensation.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.
Fixed-term contract not renewed after long-term sickness: tribunal dismisses claims and awards costs
An LSE Fellow who alleged sexual harassment by a student and then never returned to work has lost his unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and victimisation claims. The tribunal found his allegations were dishonest and made in bad faith, and ordered him to pay the LSE's costs on an indemnity basis.
Shouting at the boss: dismissal for irretrievable breakdown of trust upheld
A married couple who worked as wedding events and facilities managers were fairly dismissed after a heated meeting where the husband shouted at the company owner. The tribunal rejected claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment.