Miss S Napleton v GSI Wealth Management Limited Heard — 2020

Miss S Napleton had worked for GSI Wealth Management Limited since April 2010 and, by the end of her employment, had mainly been carrying out seminar co-ordination work for several years. The Tribunal found that although her original contract described her as an Administrator / Sales Support employee, her work had shifted in practice to seminar co-ordination, with only ad hoc administrative duties, and that she was not issued with a new contract when that change occurred. In early 2019 she had indicated that she was open to different working hours and later asked to reduce her week by two hours, which was agreed.

The dispute arose from meetings on 21, 27 and 29 March 2019. The Tribunal found that she was told the Seminar Co-ordinator role was seen by the Respondent as a three-day-a-week job, that she was being asked to consider working only three days a week, and that she was given one week to decide. At the 29 March meeting, Paul Mitchell spoke in a raised voice, criticised the Claimant for allegedly not filling her working time and for avoiding tasks, and pressed the view that if she wanted to continue working five days she should identify additional duties. The Tribunal found those criticisms were unreasonable and unfairly made, and that there had been no meaningful prior discussion of performance concerns, no performance improvement plan, and no disciplinary or capability process.

Applying the implied term of trust and confidence, the Tribunal held that the Respondent's conduct went beyond merely raising the issue of role content or offering a part-time role. It found that pressure had been brought to bear on the Claimant to accept Paul Mitchell's view, that the conduct on 21, 27 and 29 March 2019 cumulatively breached the implied term, and that the Claimant was entitled to treat the 29 March meeting as the last straw. The Tribunal also found that she did not affirm the contract by waiting until 16 May 2019 to resign, because she was signed off with stress, pursued a grievance and appeal, and made clear through her solicitors that she objected to the Respondent's conduct.

The Tribunal therefore found that the Claimant had been constructively dismissed and, in light of the Respondent's concession, that she had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment was liability only; remedy was to be determined at a later hearing, and no compensation figure was fixed in this decision.