S MacNamara v Haymarket Media Group — 2020

Ms MacNamara worked for Haymarket Media Group Ltd from 29 October 2018, first on a one-year fixed-term contract and later in a permanent role in a different division. Her contract was varied by letter to reflect the permanent role and higher pay. After she went off work with stress, she resigned on 14 August 2019 with notice to 14 September 2019.

The dispute concerned deductions from pay after Ms Swain told her at the time of resignation that she would “be paid as normal”. The tribunal held that this assurance did not create a contractual entitlement. It explained that it had to look at the contract, and found that clause 10 provided SSP for 6 months, then 5 days of full pay followed by SSP until one year’s service, with more generous terms only after that point. Ms MacNamara was within the 6 months to one year bracket, so she was not entitled to full pay for much of the sickness absence.

The tribunal also recorded that Ms MacNamara agreed the holiday pay calculation was correct and that, arithmetically, the Respondent’s calculations were correct. Although her SSP did not reach her until November, the tribunal found that nothing further was contractually due. It rejected the suggestion that the Respondent had induced her resignation by a promise to pay full pay to the end of the notice period, and dismissed the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.