Miss K Stacey v SBH Cliffden Limited — 2020

Miss Stacey had worked at the Cliffden Hotel for about four years, having been TUPE-transferred from the RNIB in April 2018. The Respondent then introduced a more commercial approach, including a lower staffing budget, and the tribunal accepted that this created additional pressure for the Claimant. However, it found that many of the alleged acts relied on by the Claimant were not proved as described, or were explained by the Respondent’s evidence, including the alleged dismissiveness by Ms Barnes, the short-notice payroll instruction, the complaint about buffet breakfast complaints, and the assertion that additional support had been refused.

The tribunal found only one criticism in the sickness-management period, namely that Ms Barnes’ 5 July 2018 letter inviting the Claimant to a welfare meeting was too prompt after she had gone off sick. Otherwise, it held that the Respondent handled the absence sympathetically, including by continuing company sick pay, and that the grievance and appeal process were not shown to be unfair. It accepted that an independent consultant could conduct the grievance, that further witnesses were interviewed on appeal, and that the Claimant was not genuinely engaged with the process.

Applying section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA, and Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp, the tribunal held that the Respondent’s conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found that, even if there had been a breach, the Claimant did not resign promptly in response to it. The tribunal considered that her resignation on 8 February 2019 was more likely prompted by the ending of company sick pay and the completion of the appeal process. The constructive unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, and the notice-pay breach of contract claim failed with it.