Mrs M Sewell, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant, an accessible transport officer in Camden Accessible Travel Solutions, complained about the allocation of inbox duties from early 2021 and later challenged the deletion of her role during a restructuring exercise. At the hearing she advanced constructive dismissal, and in the alternative express dismissal by the redundancy letter of 14 February 2022. The respondent contended that she had resigned, or that the contract ended by mutual consent, and in the alternative that any dismissal was fair by reason of redundancy.

The tribunal found that the 21 January 2022 expression of interest for voluntary redundancy was not a resignation because it was expressly withdrawable and depended on acceptance by the respondent. It also found that the emails of 11 and 18 March 2022 were requests to vary the final working day, not resignations. The mutual consent case failed, and the tribunal held that the contract ended by the respondent's unilateral notice letter of 14 February 2022, with employment ending on 12 April 2022.

On the alleged breach of trust and confidence, the tribunal accepted that the inbox duties were within the claimant's role and that the respondent was entitled to assign them. It did not accept that the claimant had been singled out, intimidated, or subjected to a lack of concern at the April 2021 meeting or thereafter. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the November 2021 comments were racially motivated, finding no evidence that the words used reflected a stereotype rather than the manager's genuine reaction to the incident. It found no credible evidence that the restructuring or deletion of the claimant's post was manipulated against her, and no failure to offer redeployment or breach of policy.

Applying the redundancy provisions and the section 98(4) fairness test, the tribunal accepted that the restructuring was a legitimate business process, that the respondent carried out consultation, job matching and ring-fencing, and that the claimant chose voluntary redundancy within that process. It therefore held that there was a dismissal by reason of redundancy, but that the dismissal was not unfair, so the claim was dismissed and no award was made.