>> You're getting confused between reality and perception.
>>
>> He could be the most obstructive, difficult, obstinate man alive and that is still no
>> defense against constructive dismissal.
>>
...nope. I wasn't saying that it was. Having resigned, he has to prove constructive dismissal. That means that he has to prove that the treatment of him steps over a given threshold, not just that he was "getting a hard time from management".
A valid defence would be that he was getting a hard time because he was underperforming, had been told so, and was being given time and opportunity to pull up his socks (before potentially being dismissed -though I agree that one wouldn't choose to tell a Tribunal "He just had to go").
As I also said, if he has compelling evidence that Ms Patel was studiously avoiding any relationship (having been told to build bridges) then he may well be positioned to prove (or at least support) that verdict of constructive dismissal.
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 29 Feb 20 at 13:42
|
