Knox (Lindsay) v Henderson Retail Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Weir LJ |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NICA 17 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 10 March 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation: [2017] NICA 17 Ref:
WEI10237
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
10/03/2017
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
BETWEEN:
LINDSAY KNOX
Applicant/Respondent;
-and-
HENDERSON RETAIL LTD
Respondent/Appellant.
________
Before Morgan LCJ, Weatherup LJ and Weir LJ
________
WEIR LJ (delivering the judgment of the Court)
The Nature of the Appeal
[1] This is an appeal by the Respondent/Appellant (“the company”) against the
unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal that Ms Knox (“the claimant”) was
constructively dismissed by the company. The claimant appeared in person before
the Tribunal but was represented in this court by Mr Michael Potter. The company
was represented before the Tribunal and in this court by Mr Warnock. We are
grateful to both counsel for their clear and succinct written and oral submissions.
The Factual Background to the claim
[2] The claimant was employed as a Manager in one of the company’s stores
from 23 July 2007 until she resigned on 1 April 2015. She alleged that on 2 and
23 August 2014 she had detected that a delivery driver for a bread company had
stolen stock from her store. Her grievance letter, dated 1 October 2014, describes a
sequence of events after she reported the alleged thefts and sets out her grievance in
respect of M, her Area Manager. The claimant engaged with the company’s
grievance procedure but expressed dissatisfaction with the process. She attended a
2
meeting with the Labour Relations Agency on 31 March 2015, after which she
discovered that M’s office was to be permanently moved to the store she had been
managing. The claimant asserted that if she agreed to return to work at the same
store she would have contact with M and, therefore, that the company was not
providing her with a safe place of work. The claimant described this as “the last
straw” and she resigned by way of a letter dated 1 April 2015.
[3] The claimant’s resignation letter is set out in full at paragraph 4(ii) of the
Tribunal Decision. In summary, it states that after she had reported the alleged
thefts and indicated she felt unable to work with the alleged thief who was still
delivering to the store, M placed her under further pressure until she was too ill to
work. She felt she had no choice but to resign as, after engaging with the grievance
procedure, the company refused to provide a safe working environment by still
requiring her to work in the same environment as the person whose actions caused
her ill-health. The claimant’s resignation letter says that during the grievance
procedure the company dismissed her concerns and sought to force her to engage in
mediation with the person in respect of whom she had raised her grievance. She felt
that the company had failed in its duty of care to her, that its actions amounted to a
breach of contract and that her health had suffered as a result.
[4] The claimant’s grievance letter of 1 October 2014 had been addressed to the
Group Human Resources Manager and is set out in full at paragraphs 4(iii) and
4(xix) of the Tribunal’s decision. In it the claimant referred to the sequence of events
after she had reported the alleged thefts to M and how she was subsequently treated
by him. In summary, after reporting the alleged thefts on 23 August 2014 and not
having receiving any reply from him by 25 August, the respondent informed H, the
Fresh Food Manager, of the alleged thefts and kept M updated. She was then
“astounded” to discover the same bread delivery driver had delivered to the store
on 29 August and telephoned M to ask why this had happened. M stated he would
call her back after he had spoken to H. Later that day, M informed the claimant that
the same delivery driver would not be delivering to the store on 30 August or
1 September and in the meantime they would be working out what was going to
happen. When asked what outcome she wanted, the claimant stated she did not
want this delivery driver to deliver to the store again.
[5] However, when the claimant returned to work after being on leave from
1 September to 7 September, she was again “astounded” to find the same delivery
driver was still delivering to the store and on 9 September 2014 she asked M why
this was. He reviewed the CCTV footage and stated he would speak to H. The
claimant told M how she felt at having to deal with someone whom she had caught
and had to deal with personally for stealing from the store. She said that M
suggested she swop shifts to avoid the delivery driver but she took issue with being
asked to change her shift and the impact that would have on her family life to
facilitate someone she considered she had detected stealing from the company in
order that he could continue in his routine without hindrance. She expressed the
To continue reading
Request your trial
5 cases
-
Harbinson vs Hovis Ltd
...the Issues (recognising that a tribunal is not required to stick slavishly to the Statement of Issues (per Knox v Henderson Retail Ltd [2017] NICA 17, approving Parekh v The London Borough of Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 1650), the tribunal offered Mr Cushley the opportunity to make an application......
-
Whearty vs Belfast City Council
...reasonable opportunity of redress to the aggrieved employee. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Lindsay Knox v Henderson Retail Ltd [2017] NICA 17 considered the proposition that a tribunal was not entitled to look behind or beyond a grievance process at the matters which led to its in......
-
Rice vs Texthelp Limited,Ryan Trainor,Joanne Kee
...reasonable opportunity of redress to the aggrieved employee. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Lindsay Knox v Henderson Retail Ltd [2017] NICA 17 considered the proposition that a tribunal was not entitled to look behind or beyond a grievance process at the matters which led to its in......
-
Daly vs Southern Regional College
...reasonable opportunity of redress to the aggrieved employee. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Lindsay Knox v Henderson Retail Ltd [2017] NICA 17 considered the proposition that a tribunal was not entitled to look behind or beyond a grievance process at the matters which led to its in......
Request a trial to view additional results