Ms A Atkinson v Saxon Court Management Company Limited — 2022

Ms A Atkinson was employed as Court Manager of Saxon Court from 2 January 2015. The Respondent had delegated management and disciplinary responsibility to Retirement Security Limited (RSL), which was also the freeholder. In late 2018 and January 2019 the Claimant was involved in disputes about RSL, supported Mr Sharples' position, and helped promote the proposal to terminate RSL as managing agent and move to his new company. The Tribunal found that, up to the sending of the termination notice on 22 January 2019, the Board had been working with her on that course of action.

The Tribunal did not accept that the 18 October 2018 telephone call with Nick Chriscoli, or the email from Linda Clement, were breaches of contract or the reason for the Claimant's resignation. It found, however, that after the Claimant went on holiday and on her return, the search of her locked office, the changing of the locks without a clear explanation, the petition stating that owners had been pressured into signing the termination statement, and the use in the investigatory meeting of additional allegations about the Tesco Clubcard, CCTV and bullying all went beyond what was reasonably required. The Tribunal held that while it was reasonable to investigate the Claimant's role in the decision to terminate the management agreement and her promotion of Mr Sharples' business, the wider conduct signalled that she could not rely on a fair and reasonable process.

Applying section 95(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the Tribunal held that the search of the office, the petition, and the exaggerated or unsupported disciplinary allegations were each, and together, conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence without reasonable or proper cause. That conduct caused the Claimant to resign on 5 March 2019, so she was constructively unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal also held she was constructively wrongfully dismissed. Issues of Polkey, contribution and mitigation were left for the remedy hearing, and the judgment records that the parties had agreed she was entitled to 5 weeks' notice if dismissed.