Mrs K Willett v Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust — 2019

Mrs K Willett worked as a Team Secretary in the Community Mental Health Team from 6 March 2000 until she resigned on 30 July 2018. The tribunal treated the main claim as constructive unfair dismissal and applied the statutory and common law approach under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, s.98(4) ERA 1996, Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju and Kaur. It accepted that the case arose against a background of heavy workload, sickness absence, management changes and disputes about procedures, but it had to decide whether the respondent's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the events of January 2016 and November 2017 amounted to a breach of trust and confidence. It found that the 27 January 2016 sickness absence discussion reflected the sickness policy and did not amount to a threat of dismissal. It also found no collusion between Ms Hunt and Ms Barter over the November 2017 change to the urgent email process, and held that the failure to tell the claimant about the change was a communication failure rather than a deliberate attempt to undermine her. The alleged remark that Miss Baumann had 'carried the claimant' was found to be ill-judged, but not slanderous, and it did not lower the claimant's standing or show an intention to end the employment relationship.

The tribunal likewise found that Mrs Munt's handling of the occupational health referral, the delay in the occupational health appointment, the 2 March 2018 letter, the 15 June 2018 redeployment discussion, the alleged instruction that staff should not speak to the claimant, and the 18 July 2018 meeting did not amount to a fundamental breach, either separately or cumulatively. It accepted that the referral contained errors and that the assessment was delayed, but described this as a failing of form, not substance. On the evidence, the claimant had said she would not return to her role, the redeployment policy applied regardless of the cause of ill-health, and she had not been told that she had to resign in order to enter redeployment. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed; the respondent's costs application was also dismissed.