Mrs E J Blair v Duncan Boxwell & Company Limited — 2023

Mrs E J Blair had worked for Duncan Boxwell & Company Limited since 1992 and resigned with immediate effect on 23 November 2021 after receiving RS's email of 19 November 2021. Her case was that the removal of some duties, the transfer of authority over holiday and overtime approvals, the 4 October 2021 resignation as director, and the possibility of a future pay reduction amounted to conduct entitling her to resign under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had no written contract or job description and that her duties had evolved over time, but it found that the 19 November 2021 email did not amount to an anticipatory breach. The reference to potentially reducing remuneration was conditional on the flexible-working trial proving successful and was not a clear or specific intention to depart from the contract. The tribunal also found that the typed notes of the 18 October 2021 meeting were based on brief notes and were largely accurate, and that they were not fabricated to mislead or deceive.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Western Excavating, Malik, Kaur, Waltham Forest v Omilaju, Wright v North Ayrshire Council and Hilton v Shiner Ltd, the tribunal concluded that the changes to duties in the email did not objectively destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence and were not a sufficiently material breach. It placed weight on the breadth of the claimant's role, the fact that duties had changed over many years, the temporary nature of the arrangement during the trial period, and the absence of any prior objection to the changes.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had instructed Christine Archer to file her resignation as a director on 4 October 2021 after RS raised the issue of the lease and personal guarantee, and that she had not complained about that step at the time. Taking the matters cumulatively, it held that there was no repudiatory breach and that the claimant did not resign in response to such a breach. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed and was dismissed, and no award was made.