Ms K Sullivan v Atamis Ltd — 2023

Ms K Sullivan brought a claim of constructive unfair dismissal arising from events in February and March 2023, following her resignation by email on 15 March 2023. The tribunal heard evidence from Ms Sullivan and three witnesses for Atamis Ltd and preferred the respondent witnesses where there were conflicts, finding that Ms Sullivan was inclined in some respects to misconstrue events while the respondent witnesses were balanced and credible.

The tribunal found that the respondent had made a series of management changes to the support function while the business was growing, including reducing the claimant's direct reports from 12 to 8, involving Mark Corbisiero in Level 1 support, and reallocating some work such as onboarding, training sessions, account management for orphan clients, and SLA reporting. It found that these changes were intended to support the claimant and reduce workload, and that several of them were made with her involvement or reflected reasonable managerial discretion. It also found that the prospective move from Support Manager to Tech Lead had not been implemented by the date of resignation, and that the absence of details about the new role, salary and bonus was because the role had not yet been defined.

On the disputed March meetings and messages, the tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely felt stressed and distressed by the changing support structure, but rejected her case that she had been pushed out or that the 15 March 2023 meeting with Helen Evans was a bullying or faux disciplinary meeting. It accepted Ms Evans' notes of the meeting as accurate and rejected the allegation that they had been fabricated. The tribunal also found there was no basis for the claimant's conclusion that the 14 March exchange with Mr Musgrave meant she was no longer Support Manager.

Applying the law on constructive dismissal, including the implied term of trust and confidence, the objective test, the requirement for a repudiatory breach under Western Excavating v Sharp, Malik and Mahmud, Omilaju, Norwest Holst, and Kaur, the tribunal held that the respondent did not act in a way calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence, that it had reasonable and proper cause for what it did, and that there was no fundamental breach. It therefore held that the claimant was not dismissed and dismissed the claim.