In person (with PSU support) For the v Respondent — 2018

Miss Jaramillo Silva worked for Mr Delahaye as a housekeeper from 14 October 2013. The tribunal found that her pay was agreed on a weekly salaried basis, with an hour’s lunch break, and that there was no contractual term requiring paid lunch breaks. It also found that any hourly calculations discussed in late 2018 were retrospective attempts to recast a relationship that had not originally been based on hourly pay.

The tribunal rejected the alleged breaches said to amount to constructive dismissal. It found that the hospital appointment issue, the late pension setup and payslip arrangements, the knee injury episode, the alleged last-minute tasks and criticisms from September 2018, the holiday argument, and the 7 November email did not amount to conduct calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence. On the facts found, Miss Jaramillo Silva agreed the reduction from five days to three days a week and continued working the new rota from 1 October 2018.

The tribunal found that Miss Jaramillo Silva resigned because Mr Delahaye would not increase her pay to £15 per hour, not because of the reduction in hours or the lunch-break issue. It therefore held that there had been no constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the related notice and wages claims failed because the reduced hours had been agreed and notice pay had been correctly calculated.

The holiday pay claim was settled for £220 during the hearing and then withdrawn, and the dry-cleaning expense claim for £30 was paid in cash and withdrawn. The SSP claim was dismissed because Miss Jaramillo Silva could not explain the basis on which it was said to be due. No remedy hearing was therefore needed and the provisional remedy date was cancelled.