Ms T Kenyon v Independent Vetcare Limited — 2022

Ms Kenyon brought only a constructive unfair dismissal claim after resigning on 20 August 2021 with notice to 30 September 2021. She relied on six alleged breaches: the 13 November 2019 return-to-work meeting with Anna Wall, the decision not to promote her to Payroll Supervisor in late 2019, unresolved mobile phone signal issues during 2020 and early 2021, the respondent's response to her 17 June 2021 complaints and request to work 100% from home, Suzie Abbott's 23 July 2021 email about her reluctance to attend meetings, and Rachael Martins' 13 August 2021 email.

The tribunal found that the 13 November 2019 meeting was a difficult discussion about performance concerns, but it did not accept that Anna Wall shouted at the claimant, and it accepted Wall's notes as an accurate summary. The promotion decision was found to be a business decision with cogent, sensible and credible reasons, including that Natalie Flagg was already on the finance side of payroll and had qualifications the claimant did not have. The mobile phone issue was treated as ancillary to an email-based role, and the tribunal found the respondent had tried to resolve it. For the earlier 2019 and 2020 matters, the tribunal also held that any breach would in any event have been affirmed because the claimant waited a long time before raising complaints.

As to June to August 2021, the tribunal found that the claimant's request to work 100% from home was not reasonable in the circumstances and that her complaints about historic events were initially raised as part of that request rather than as free-standing grievances. It found that Suzie Abbott was entitled to question the claimant's reluctance to attend meetings and to require attendance, and that Rachael Martins acted reasonably in meeting the claimant, considering the issues, and then writing the 13 August 2021 email. Looking at the matters cumulatively, the tribunal concluded that there was no course of conduct amounting to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and no 'last straw' case under Omilaju. The claim therefore failed and was dismissed, with no remedy awarded.