Security Officer Loses Constructive Dismissal Appeal Over Grievance Handling
A security officer's claim for unfair constructive dismissal has been dismissed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Tribunal Decision
An Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal brought by a security officer, Mr F Amedzo, against his former employer, Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited. Mr Amedzo had claimed unfair constructive dismissal, alleging that his employer had failed to properly handle a grievance he raised.
Background to the Case
Mr Amedzo, who had been employed as a security officer since April 2002, resigned on 13 June 2022, claiming he had been constructively dismissed. His resignation followed a series of events and a grievance he raised in January 2022 concerning alleged fraud by a manager, Mr Gilbert, in relation to a previous investigation into his absenteeism. The initial grievance was rejected, and his subsequent appeal was also unsuccessful.
Tribunal's Initial Findings
The Employment Tribunal had previously rejected Mr Amedzo's claim. The tribunal found no relevant breach of contract by the respondent employer in the way the grievance had been handled. Specifically, the tribunal found no evidence of procedural irregularity or bias in the grievance process and therefore no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
Appeal Grounds Rejected
Mr Amedzo's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal focused on three main grounds. These related to the proper handling of grievances, the suitability of a manager to conduct an appeal hearing, and the role of a supervisor in an absence review meeting. His Honour Judge Shanks, presiding over the appeal, found no error of law in the original tribunal's decision.
Regarding the handling of grievances, the EAT acknowledged that a failure to seriously consider a grievance can be grounds for constructive dismissal. However, the judge noted that the Employment Tribunal had considered the complaints about the grievance procedure in detail and found no breach. The judge also addressed concerns about the seniority of managers involved in the grievance and appeal process, concluding that the tribunal's findings of fact on these matters were not open to challenge on appeal.
The appeal also touched upon a meeting with a supervisor, Mr Boyle, which Mr Amedzo had refused to attend. The EAT found that the tribunal's determination that Mr Boyle was a manager for the purposes of the company's absence policy was a finding of fact and not perverse. Furthermore, the judge found that this particular issue had not led to any relevant prejudice or had a causative effect on Mr Amedzo's ultimate resignation.
Conclusion
In summary, the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the original Employment Tribunal's decision was based on findings of fact and did not involve any error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Read the entire judgment here: Mr F Amedzo V Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited [2025] EAT 202
