In person For the v Respondent — 2024

Ms Shirley Jewell worked for Cornwall Council from 17 August 2007 and, after a whistleblowing disclosure in 2018 about an alleged affair between two colleagues, she brought a grievance in 2019 about the council having disclosed her identity and about resulting harassment from Female Colleague. That grievance was upheld, and the tribunal recorded that the parties then reached an agreed arrangement that any contact from FC would be work-related only. The tribunal found that the respondent supported the claimant through the earlier episode, including occupational health and counselling support, and described that support as exemplary.

The dispute before the tribunal arose after FC began contacting the claimant again in June 2022, initially by Facebook and then by Teams. The claimant blocked the Facebook messages, reported the matter to her managers on 20 June 2022, and the respondent told her she did not need to answer FC’s Teams calls or messages. The tribunal accepted that the messages were not threatening, intimidating or violent, that FC was also experiencing serious mental health difficulties, and that the claimant herself was concerned about FC’s welfare as well as her own position.

The claimant said in her resignation email of 12 July 2022 that she felt forced to resign because Cornwall Council had allowed the conduct to continue and had breached contract and trust and confidence. The tribunal found that, up to 11 July 2022, the claimant had not asked for the respondent to take coercive action against FC, and that when she did raise the issue more directly, Mr Langley agreed to speak to HR the following day. It rejected the claimant’s case that the respondent had failed to take steps after her report, and it found that the respondent was not acting without reasonable and proper cause.

Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, including the statutory test in section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the unfair dismissal test in section 98(4), the tribunal held that there had been no fundamental breach of contract, no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and therefore no dismissal. The claim for unfair dismissal was accordingly dismissed, and no monetary remedy was awarded.