ZORICA NIKOLIC-PARRY v The College of Optometrists — 2024

The claimant worked for the respondent from 8 March 2010, becoming Head of Finance in 2014. She resigned on 10 October 2023 and her notice expired on 2 January 2024. The tribunal accepted that she found Mr Bill Scott’s management style irksome and at times demoralising, and that he could be blunt and heavy-handed, but it found that those features did not, either individually or cumulatively, amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal found that the claimant had raised concerns informally in 2022, and that the respondent addressed them through meetings, guidance, a support agreement and a job profile. It accepted that there had been a marked improvement after that process. On the budget-related lump sum, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been promised a £5,000 payment in advance, that the award was discretionary, and that the explanation for the eventual £500 payment given in November 2023 was credible and rational. The tribunal held that the timing of that explanation, after the claimant had resigned but during notice, did not itself amount to a breach and did not contribute to a last straw case.

On the interactions with Ms Lizzy Ostler, the tribunal accepted that relations between the departments were strained and that the claimant took criticism to heart, but it found no conduct by Ms Ostler that crossed the required threshold. On Ms Sandra Holmes’ conduct at the 31 August 2023 meeting, the tribunal found that the language used was intemperate and embarrassing, but it was an isolated episode and occurred in the context of poor internet connection and repeated interruption. The tribunal concluded that the respondent’s failure to secure an apology or make an open statement did not elevate the incident into a breach, and that the matters relied on, viewed singly or together, did not amount to bullying, a hostile or unsafe working environment, or a reason that justified resignation. The constructive dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.