Tribunal deputy chairman Advocate Ian Jones told Stanford Musiiwa that he had not come close to establishing that there had been the necessary breach of contract that could allow him to succeed in his claim.
The tribunal, which had struck out an additional claim for work-related discrimination last year, noted that when Mr Musiiwa resigned from his post on 21 February, he gave no indication of being unhappy with his employer.
Indeed, he wrote: “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to work in this position for the past two years. I have enjoyed working here and appreciate all the opportunities you have given me. Due to my health issues, I would like to be closer to my family back in the UK. Thank you again for the opportunity, and I wish Children Services all the best for the future.”
But a week later he wrote a second letter in which he claimed to have resigned because his supervisor would not allow him to take time off in lieu to attend health appointments in the UK.
“I would like to have a meeting to discuss the above as I intend to seek compensation for constructive, unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal. However, I would be prepared to discuss a financial settlement to avoid the need for both parties to enter lengthy litigation processes,” Mr Musiiwa wrote.
Giving evidence, Mr Musiiwa claimed that his manager “had a vendetta” against him and that supervision records were “dishonest” in their content. However, he accepted that neither allegation featured in either of his two resignation letters.
Summarising the States Employment Board case, which was presented by Advocate James Rondel, the Deputy chairman said: “The respondent sought to argue that the true view of Mr Musiiwa was to be found in the first letter and that the claim, and the later differing reasons for his resignation were engendered by the advice that he received from his union.
“In my view, based on the evidence Mr Musiiwa gave and the content of the second letter regarding the possibility of financial settlement, there was some force in this submission.”
While Advocate Jones said that a claim could arise in circumstances where an employer made it difficult or impossible to take time off to attend a medical appointment, he noted that a medical appointment had not been given as the reason for Mr Musiiwa’s request.
He also accepted evidence from the employer that employees were welcome to attend medical appointments without compromising their holiday allowance.
Giving judgment, Advocate Jones said: “In my view, Mr Musiiwa did not come close to establishing that there had been any breach of contract by the respondent.
“Notwithstanding the myriad of evidential issues, the failure to prove any breach was ultimately fatal to Mr Musiiwa’s case. I therefore dismiss the claim.”