In person, Assisted by her husband Mr Rider For the v Ms E Afriyie, Consultant — 2023

Mrs Julie Rider worked as a Sales Administrator from 20 September 2011 until her resignation took effect on 20 May 2022. She worked from home in St Austell, was the only female employee, and communicated with Mr Richards mainly by email. The dispute arose after an argument on 10 November 2021 in the Plymouth office between Mr Dunk and the respondent's external accountant, Mr Ingham, which upset the claimant and led her to raise a grievance on 14 November 2021.

The respondent referred the grievance immediately to HR. A written report dated 3 December 2021 considered eight complaints and upheld only part of the point about the employer's duty of care in relation to a safe working environment. It did not uphold the claimant's complaints about Mr Dunk's behaviour or the alleged effects on her mental health, but recommended possible mediation and training. Mr Richards sent the report to the claimant on 4 January 2022, explained that he would discuss communication improvements, and told her she could appeal. The claimant did not appeal. She resigned on 20 April 2022, saying she felt surplus to requirements, had been treated badly after almost 11 years of work, and that the stress was making her ill; Mr Richards invited her to reconsider and offered a meeting, but she declined.

Applying section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the authorities on constructive dismissal including Western Excavating, Malik and Omilaju, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract or conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. It rejected allegations that Mr Richards failed to support or communicate with the claimant, referred to her offhand, or ignored her to get rid of her. It accepted that he telephoned the claimant less often than the male employees, but found that this was because she was a remote worker with minimal need for supervision and could communicate by email, so the difference had a clear operational explanation. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant had not been dismissed and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.

On the Equality Act claims, the tribunal applied the direct discrimination and harassment provisions in sections 13, 26, 136 and 212 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the factual allegations were either not proved or, where proved, were explained by the claimant's remote working arrangements and role rather than age or sex. The tribunal held that no facts were established from which age or sex discrimination could be inferred, and that the telephone-contact allegation did not amount to unwanted conduct having the required effect. All age and sex discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed.