Justifiable monitoring is not a breach of contract
In National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children v Dear,
the EAT held that if an employee fails to follow proper procedures, it
is quite normal for an employer to insist on a period of monitoring to
ensure compliance. This is a legitimate instruction which does not
amount to a breach of contract.

Mr Dear’s role as a social worker involved manning a help-line. Accurate
records are essential. Following concerns about his record keeping, he
received a call about a distressed child, but the note was not dated,
the entry was not signed, his handwriting was illegible and the call was
not recorded as a “child at risk”.

At a disciplinary hearing, Mr Dear: (i) was issued with an oral warning;
(ii) had to log all calls on a special form to be signed off by a Duty
Manager; and (iii) had to have his notebook reviewed by the Duty Manager
to confirm the content was legible, clear and accurate. He objected,
resigned and a tribunal upheld his claim of constructive dismissal.

The EAT upheld the employer’s appeal. If an employee has failed to
follow proper procedures it is normal for an employer to require
monitoring to secure compliance with those procedures. That monitoring
is not a punishment but a legitimate management instruction. Here,
monitoring was a perfectly reasonable requirement to secure compliance
with NSPCC’s procedures. It was necessary to ensure child protection and
was not a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the employee to
resign and claim constructive dismissal.