In person For the v Ms A Ahmad — 2021

The sole live issue at the final hearing was whether the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal applied the usual constructive dismissal framework, including section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and asked whether there had been a fundamental breach, whether the claimant had affirmed the contract, and whether the resignation was in response to any breach. It also noted that the claimant’s earlier discrimination, harassment, victimisation, breach of contract and flexible working claims had already been dismissed on withdrawal by a judgment sent on 15 December 2021.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the claimant’s written job description and permanent contract supported a Grade 6 executive assistant role that could include project and administrative work such as the Yearbook/Annual Review, GradVenture, budget reforecasting, SharePoint work and related tasks. It rejected the claimant’s case that these matters, or the handling of her 2019 flexible working request, appraisal process, role review request, and various workplace interactions, amounted to conduct that destroyed trust and confidence. In several respects it found that the claimant had either chosen her own arrangements, including annual leave and TOIL to reduce her working days, or had affirmed matters by continuing in employment without complaint for long periods.

The decisive event was the claimant’s resignation on 19 August 2020 after Ms Dodd, acting as interim director, would not approve an immediate reduction to 2.5 days per week before the new director arrived. The tribunal held that refusal to be reasonable and justified, because the EA role was designed to support the director and the claimant’s own emails showed that the role could not be done on a 0.5 FTE basis. It found that the claimant resigned because she was unhappy that the request was not approved immediately, and that her later attempts to withdraw her resignation did not alter the legal position. The claim was therefore dismissed, and there was no remedy hearing. The tribunal added that, if liability had been established, it would likely have made a 90% Polkey reduction and would provisionally have found 50% contributory fault, but those points were hypothetical only.