Constructive Dismissal Legal Claim

I will upload * paragraph at a time as it far exceeds the * word limit

STRICTLY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SAVE AS TO COSTS This communication is sent for the purposes of a bona fide attempt to settle a dispute and is copied to the appointed Acas Conciliator under the auspices of statutory Early Conciliation. To whom it may concern, I am contacting you regarding the conversation that you will have had with ACAS regarding my Claim for Constructive Unfair Dismissal on grounds of Detriments arising from Whistleblowing. The claim is based on the Employment Rights Act * (ERA1996) S.* & S.*(*)(c), S.47B & S.103A respectively. The basis of my claim is the employer's fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence (through systemic health and safety failures and lack of mandatory training under PUWER1998, COSHH2002 and MHSWR1999 and total disregard for statutory duties.

I was hired as cleaning manager for Morrisons superstore on July 6th *. Prior to this I had been in discussions with Ben Greenwood who was the area manager at that time. In a message dated 29th June * he states (verbatim) "My plan was never to have you work without being onboarded as it would not only be illegal it be impossible to pay you for any of the training days". It turned out this training consisted of one morning shadowing another manager at their site who was lone working and rushing to complete her cleaning tasks, followed by a morning working alongside a 70 year old subordinate on my own site. This falls well short of the requirements under the Health and safety at W

Work Act * (HSWA1974). Under S.*(*)(c) employers have a statutory duty to provide "such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees". This applies directly to onboarding and making staff aware of operational hazards. Furthermore, Regulation * of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations * (MHSWR1999) imposes a legal obligation on employers to provide comprehensive information to employees on the risks identified by workplace assessments (more on this in a moment), the preventative measures put in place, and the emergency procedures.

Regulation * requires that this training must be structured, meaningful, and genuinely capable of ensuring a worker understands operational risks and safe systems of work. Therefore, the minimal training I did receive falls very short of the required standard, meaning that the company failed in its duty of care right from the outset, despite Mr. Greenwood recognised that it would be illegal to not onboard somebody correctly in his message on the 29th June.

I suffer from a sleep disorder which means that I have been prescribed Clonazepam for 12 years with a set routine. I was unaware of the effects of changing that routine (bringing my alarm forwards *.* hours) on my cognitive function. This meant that issues that I would normally have picked up on immediately were not immediately noticed. In fact, I pushed through the first week on pure adrenaline before suffering an episode resulting in acute exhaustion both physically and mentally. The recovery time for such an episode is *-14 days.

I returned to work after 4 days and had still not recovered. By the end of the following week I had more or less returned to full cognitive function. At this point I realised that I had not yet seen the risk assessments for the site. When I looked at the risk assessments, I realised that they were only generic risk assessments. I have photographic evidence showing the risk assessments including RA's for carrying machines on escalators on a site where there are no escalators and never have been. All of the RA's are signed by the same individual and date back to *.

Although there were only * OCS employees on site (including myself), R v Octel Co Ltd. [*] UKHL1 imposes a non delegable duty on employers to protect persons not in their employment. This includes the wider workforce (Morrisons employees) and the public (this is a supermarket). This is supported further by Masiak v City Restaurants (*) IRLR780 which establishes that health and safety protection covers members of the public, not just employees. This is supported further by the HSWA1974 S.*(*) which imposes a duty to ensure that persons not in employment, (such as the public and wider supermarket staff) are not exposed to risks.

These requirements based in statute and case law render the rule of * (under * employees) obsolete in this instance, and site specific risk assessments should be in place in order to comply with the employer's statutory obligations. I raised the initial issue of the generic risk assessments on Friday 24th July. Following further statutory research that evening, I identified that I had also been denied mandatory training required under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations * (PUWER *) and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations * (COSHH *).

I submitted an urgent email detailing these statutory failures late that Friday night. My Regional Manager (RM) was demonstrably active over the weekend, as evidenced by a WhatsApp communication I received from her regarding an unrelated matter on Saturday 25th July; however, my critical health and safety disclosures were ignored. Being a person with formal legal training and a clear comprehension of statutory risk assessment frameworks, I felt highly exposed. Once I identified these systemic omissions, I was acutely aware that as the designated manager on site, I faced personal exposure to statutory liability.

Once I identified these systemic omissions, I was acutely aware that as the designated manager on site, I faced personal exposure to statutory liability. While an employer's primary duty of care remains strictly non-delegable under the HSWA1974, individual managers shoulder distinct statutory obligations under Section * and Section * of the Act. The complete absence of site-specific risk assessments directly compromised my ability to discharge those duties safely, placing me at immediate personal and regulatory risk. I found this position profoundly concerning

On Saturday 25th July, I contacted the manager of an alternative company site to ascertain whether this lack of compliance was localised. I inquired directly as to whether her site operated solely on generic assessments. Her response was alarming: she confirmed that her site had been completely devoid of any risk assessments for the preceding three years, owing to a predecessor destroying them on departure. This information exponentially elevated my concerns. Coupled with the flagrant shortcomings on my own site, it provided objective substance to a reasonable belief - pursuant to Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act * - that the Respondent treated health and safety obligations as a superficial administrative afterthought rather than a strict legal imperative.

By Monday morning, having processed the gravity of this systemic failure, my concern had escalated significantly. At approximately * on Monday 27th July, I collated my previous health and safety disclosures alongside unresolved grievances regarding severe site understaffing, and re-sent them, expressly copying in Human Resources to ensure institutional visibility

When no acknowledgement or emergency remedial action was forthcoming by late afternoon on Tuesday 28th July, the total institutional silence caused me to panic regarding my personal legal exposure. The Respondent's outright failure to address acute safety disclosures regarding PUWER Regulations * and *, combined with concurrent breaches of COSHH compliance and the complete absence of site-specific risk assessments (taking into consideration R v Associated Octel Co Ltd [*] UKHL *), struck at the very core of the employment relationship

At this juncture, the implied term of mutual trust and confidence was irrevocably destroyed. Consequently, I issued a Without Prejudice communication confirming the Respondent's fundamental breach had rendered my position entirely untenable, giving conditional notice of my resignation to formally terminate on Friday 31st July

While I received an email response the following day inviting me to an informal chat or directing me toward an internal grievance procedure, this gesture was entirely inadequate and far too late. I had already lost all faith in the business due to the absolute breakdown of trust and confidence, and my subsequent absence due to work-related stress on Wednesday 29th July was a direct manifestation of the untenable pressure caused by the Respondent's total failure to secure a safe system of work.

The employer's failure to address acute safety disclosures regarding PUWER Regulations * and *, combined with concurrent breaches of COSHH compliance and the complete absence of site specific RAs (taking into consideration R v Associated Octel Co Ltd [*] UKHL *), constitutes a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Under the Buckland principle (reaffirmed in Flatman v Essex Council), once a fundamental breach has occurred, it cannot legally be undone by subsequent inaction, delays or belated remedies. While Flatman addresses the cumulative nature of health and safety breaches over time, that principle does not excuse total institutional silence or inaction when an employee formally puts an employer on notice of active, severe statutory hazards and unmitigated toxic/mechanical risks.

All of the claims made within this email are supported by emails, messages, videos, photos, screenshots and Metadata which will be made available once ET1 is submitted and in accordance with the Tribunal's case management timetable and standard disclosure directions.

I am fully aware that under the Employment tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations *, explicitly written into the Overriding Objective is the duty of the court to actively manage cases by "promoting or using alternative dispute resolution" and that litigants are legally required to help the court to further that objective, therefore, in the interest of complying with the ADR requirement, I am willing at this stage to accept a reasonable reduced settlement offer. The current value of my claim at this point is £*,*.*. This is broken down as follows

Compensatory Award (Loss of earnings): £* based on £*.* gross multiplied across * weeks. Statutory Notice Pay (PILON): £*.*. Justified statutory notice for abrupt termination without due notice. Injury to feelings (Whistleblowing detriment - Vento lower band - Calibrated to April * Ninth Addendum thresholds): £*. Justification - Reflects the serious distress, professional detriment and ongoing impact under S.47B of the ERA1996, stemming from ignored health and safety disclosures and the impact of leaving a person with regulatory and statutory knowledge feeling extremely exposed to liability.

In the interest of expediting matters rather than drawing matters out for longer than necessary, you have * DAYS from the date of this email. Once the deadline passes. I will request an Early Conciliation Certificate (ACAS Certificate) and move forward with submitting the ET1 form and proceeding to tribunal. Kind Regards, Timothy Wedge Disclaimer. I am a law graduate who concentrated my studies in corporate, commercial, and intellectual property law, acting strictly as a litigant in person. Nothing in this correspondence should be construed in any way, shape, or form as a claim to be a legal professional or to provide regulated legal advice.

I am am a lawyer. I'm not a qualified solicitor, but I graduated a top * law school with first class honours

I'm good. I just wanted a second opinion on my final draft of this email, to ensure the case was strong and I have made the correct references in terms of the case law

Thank you

Thanks. I am aiming to try for an early settlement. I am giving them 14 days to respond via acas, then I request my acas certificate and submit my et1

The company employs over *,* people and has never lost a case at tribunal, however, despite the large workforce, only * cases have made it to tribunal. My hunch is that they only persue cases they are * % certain they can win. My case is too strong and too well constructed for that guarantee

Which is precisely why they will never let it reach tribunal. Their *% success record is on the line (not to mention possible regulatory scrutiny from the hse who they already took to court over hse's fee system