In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant started work for DEFRA on 21 February 2019 as a senior policy adviser. Her complaints centred on her line manager, Brigid Finlayson, and on the way management handled concerns she said she had raised from November 2019 onwards. The tribunal found that, when the claimant spoke to Mr Gooding and Ms Barton in late 2019, she did not clearly report bullying or harassment; rather, she raised concerns about feedback, the pace of work, and wanting a change in role. The tribunal accepted Ms Barton’s evidence and the contemporaneous note that the claimant had raised concerns over the probation report process and wanted to change line management.

On the specific incidents relied on for constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the July 2020 phone calls were an unfortunate episode in which Ms Finlayson raised her voice and caused the claimant to believe she was being blamed for report problems, but that incident was a one-off and was not, by itself, a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal did not find proved the broader allegations of bullying, deliberate delay of work, or blocking of internal applications. It also found that the grievance handling was not a breach of contract: there had been no formal grievance in November 2019 or July 2020, the delayed formal process was partly attributable to the claimant’s own failure to submit the form to the appropriate manager and to cooperate with the investigation, and the investigation and appeal were handled within a reasonable framework once the complaint was located.

The tribunal therefore rejected the constructive dismissal claim. Applying the authorities it cited, including the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the final-straw analysis in Omilaju, and the Kaur questions, it held that the matters relied on individually or cumulatively did not amount to a repudiatory breach. It accepted that the claimant resigned because she perceived that her complaints had not been taken seriously, but that was not enough to establish constructive dismissal. The tribunal also rejected the notice pay claim on the same basis.

The respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled at the material times for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, but the tribunal held that it did not have actual or imputed knowledge of that disability until the July 2020 sick note and email. On the section 15 claim, it found that Ms Barton’s WhatsApp messages were reasonable return-to-work contact in line with policy and not unfavourable treatment, and that the alleged team-meeting announcement that the claimant was expected back did not happen. The tribunal therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claim and did not need to consider proportionality.