Janice Foley v Dr Sarah Harding and Dr Catriona McNicol T/A Park Edge Practice — 2023

Janice Foley resigned on 17 May 2023 after concerns about the Respondent’s proposed recruitment of a Deputy Practice Manager. Her concerns were about the possible effect on her salary, job title, responsibilities and the overlap between the proposed role and her existing role as Assistant Practice Manager / Practice Secretary. The tribunal recorded that she had been consulted from the appraisal meeting on 24 January 2023 onwards, had been shown the draft job description, and had been asked to mark up the parts she said she already did.

The tribunal accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the new role was created because of increased workload and that the practice management team needed additional support. It found that the Claimant’s salary, contract, job title and existing role were not going to change, and that the Respondent had told her this in the meeting on 12 May 2023. The tribunal also found that the Claimant had opportunities to engage with the process, including being offered the chance to help draft a staff-wide explanation, but she declined that proposal and did not return the marked-up job description.

On the grievance issue, the tribunal found that the Claimant had raised concerns informally but had not made a formal written grievance. It held that the Respondent did not act unreasonably in treating the matter as an informal concern at that stage. The tribunal also found that any overlap between the new role and the Claimant’s role was inevitable and did not amount to a breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it had set out, the tribunal concluded that there was no course of conduct that came close to a repudiatory breach. The job advertisement had never gone out before the resignation, the proposed role did not alter the Claimant’s own terms, and there was no conduct showing that the Respondent no longer intended to be bound by the essential terms of her contract. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.