Mrs N Glen v Matalan Retail Limited — 2019

Mrs Glen was employed by Matalan Retail Limited from 31 May 2008 until her resignation took effect on 12 April 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent's March 2019 profit protection restructure was genuine and not a sham. It accepted that the claimant expected the restructured role to involve more travel and that she was not prepared to travel more, particularly after receiving a better-paid job offer from John Lewis in Glasgow.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the common law test for repudiatory breach, including the implied term of mutual trust and confidence as described in Malik v BCCI and Woods v WM Car Services. It accepted that, during the 8 March 2019 consultation call, HR answered yes when asked whether failing to state a preference would be treated as a resignation. However, the tribunal held that answer, taken in context, together with Mr Parkes not calling on 11 or 12 March, did not amount to conduct that destroyed trust and confidence or otherwise amounted to a repudiatory breach. The claimant's resignation email of 13 March 2019 was described as friendly and positive and did not suggest she was resigning because of misconduct by the respondent.

On the redundancy payment claim, the tribunal applied sections 135 and 136 ERA 1996 and held that Mrs Glen had not been dismissed by reason of redundancy. It found that she resigned before the consultation process concluded, after deciding not to remain in the restructured process, and that she would have been matched into the restructured Region 1 role had she wished to continue. The judgment accordingly dismissed both claims and made no monetary award.