Ms Perla Cunha v Leather Unlimited — 2021

Ms Perla Cunha worked for Leather Unlimited from April 2015 and was not given a written contract until 12 August 2019. The tribunal found that she had a good early working relationship with Ms Weldon and that the employment relationship later deteriorated in July and August 2019 after a series of disputes about travel, job roles, grievances, and communications. The tribunal rejected several of the claimant's complaints as standalone breaches, including the failure to provide a written contract, the travel complaints, the health and safety complaint about international travel, the alleged removal of duties, the single office incident on 23 July 2019, and the delay in dealing with the grievance.

The tribunal did find that Ms Weldon breached confidentiality by discussing the claimant's personal and employment issues with Stacy Morris and by telling other staff that the claimant had raised a grievance. It also found that repeated suggestions that the claimant should leave, together with the unsolicited reference letter on 31 July 2019, were capable of breaching mutual trust and confidence. The tribunal further found that the grievance meeting on 4 September 2019 was itself a breach, including Ms Weldon's approach to the claimant's mental health and her failure to engage appropriately with the grievance process.

Applying the authorities it cited on constructive dismissal and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal held that the breaches cumulatively amounted to a repudiatory breach and that the 4 September 2019 meeting was the last straw. Ms Cunha resigned on 12 September 2019 in response to that breach, so her constructive dismissal claim succeeded on liability.

On the unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal held that the respondent had not shown any potentially fair reason for dismissal. It noted that the claimant had not been given warnings and that the respondent had not raised disciplinary concerns during her employment. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair, but deferred compensation to a remedies hearing listed for 17 March 2021. It also said that a Polkey reduction could not usefully be assessed on the evidence and that the claimant did not contribute to her dismissal.