|
| ||
| ||
|
|
Professor Buckland failed a few too many students for the liking of course managers. The students' papers were remarked without consulting him and the results of a number of previously failed students improved.
Professor Buckland took offence at this interference in the marking process, of having overturned his marking without consulting him and felt that this fundamentally undermined the relationship of trust between him and his employer. An employment tribunal agreed with him. An investigation by another professor took place and although professor Buckland objected to the academic rather than a judge holding the investigation he did not decide to leave, awaiting the outcome of the enquiry before deciding whether or not to accept the original breach in contract and consider himself as discharged. In waiting for the outcome of the investigation professor Buckland allowed the university to claim that even though it had been originally in breach of the contract any wrong done was now repaired. The university by its investigation and report had corrected the breach. When professor Buckland decided to leave, he no longer had a good reason to do so, and was according to the EAT not constructively dismissed. So if a worker waits on an investigation he is taking a risk that a tribunal will consider that the wrong done him was repaired before he left his job. The EAT also decided that the 'range of responses' rule does not apply to cases of constructive dismissal For more information on the 'range of responses' see a previous article: The Court of Appeal's unreasonable affinity for the 'Range of Reasonable Responses' - London Ambulance v Small [2009] The transcript of this case can be found Here
|