Miss A Noor v Home-Made UK Properties Limited — 2021

The claimant began work for the respondent on 3 July 2017 as a Senior Co-ordinator. The tribunal accepted that, over time, there were documented exchanges with her line manager which she said showed bullying, pressure over lunch breaks and working hours, criticism of appointments and other treatment that she experienced as petty, confusing and undermining. It also rejected the respondent's attempt to characterise her as a poor performer, noting that the documentary record did not support that case beyond a verbal warning in 2017 for a typographical error.

The tribunal found that the immediate trigger was the exchanges on 21 and 22 August 2019 about late registration of tenant deposits. It found that the line manager's requests for information, including the pressure to provide more detail immediately and the tone used in the messages, were likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. Mr Bishop accepted that it would be unreasonable to ask for information like this outside normal working hours, and the tribunal said the respondent had not shown reasonable and proper cause for the way the claimant was treated. On the evidence before it, the tribunal found that the claimant had been treated in the manner she complained of and that the treatment on those dates, together with the earlier history, amounted to a fundamental breach.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned principally because of that breach, with the earlier treatment and the mistake over the deposits forming part of the background. It held that affirmation was not in issue because the resignation happened during the exchange of communications. Applying the constructive dismissal principles and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was entitled to treat the contract as at an end and that her claim succeeded. The recoupment regulations did not apply.

On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant was aged 24 when her employment ended on 5 September 2019 and had 2 years' continuous service. It accepted that she had made substantial efforts to mitigate loss and that she obtained alternative employment on 29 January 2020. It awarded a basic award of 1,050 and a compensatory award of 10,275, made up of 9,975 for 100 working days' lost net earnings at 99.75 per day and 300 for loss of statutory employment protection. The tribunal also found that, although the claimant's failures to attend to the deposit governance matters contributed to the end of the employment, they were not culpable or blameworthy and it would not be just and equitable to reduce the award.

The separate breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the claimant's complaint about post-termination restrictions. The claim was therefore dismissed rather than determined on its merits.