Miss N Wildman v ADM Healthcare Ltd — 2021

Miss Wildman worked as a relief dispenser across the respondent's pharmacies. She alleged a series of incidents between December 2018 and March 2019 involving Mr Bhandal, and two later allegations involving Mr Singh, as the basis for a harassment claim related to sex and a constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found several of the alleged incidents did not happen as described, including the more serious allegations of being told to keep her mouth shut, being accused of lying in the way alleged, being told she would be dealt with, being accused of an affair, and being told "pity party". Where comments or instructions did happen, the tribunal generally characterised them as brief, brusque or poor management rather than conduct of the seriousness required for harassment.

On the harassment claim, the tribunal accepted that some interactions were unwanted and that Mr Bhandal's management style could be short and brusque, including the 19 December 2018 conversation about MDS trays and the 4 March 2019 delivery call where he was short with the claimant and put the phone down. However, it found that the conduct did not actually create, and could not reasonably have created, an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment of the kind required by section 26 Equality Act 2010. It also found no evidence that any of the conduct was related to the claimant's sex. Time was extended to 7 December 2019 as just and equitable, but the harassment claim was still dismissed.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal considered the same alleged incidents together with the later Mr Singh allegations. It accepted that Mr Singh had accused the claimant of asking Ms Dewett to lie, but found he did so because he reasonably believed she wanted the reference request kept from him. It also accepted that Mr Singh knew the claimant had concerns about Mr Bhandal, but found she had not given him detail and had not wanted him to speak to Mr Bhandal. The tribunal held that the respondent's conduct did not amount to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence; at most it amounted to robust management in a busy pharmacy, with only one unreasonable act identified, namely Mr Bhandal putting the phone down on the claimant.

The tribunal also found that by 17 June 2019 at the latest the claimant had no intention of returning to work and was seeking to negotiate a settlement. It found her resignation on 27 August 2019 was made because she believed a settlement had been reached, not in response to a repudiatory breach by the respondent. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed because the claimant had not been dismissed within section 95 ERA 1996.