Mrs S Maudsley v FP&S Parts And Services Limited — 2020

Mrs S Maudsley worked as the respondent's HR Manager from 12 June 2015. The central dispute was whether Mr East agreed in January 2016 to increase her salary from £30,000 to £40,000 in two stages. The tribunal preferred the claimant's account of the January 2016 conversation and the email exchange that followed, but held that the later contract she prepared for herself recorded a basic salary of £36,000 and contained an entire agreement clause, so she could not rely on prior oral discussions to establish a contractual entitlement to £40,000.

On that basis, the breach of contract complaint and the linked unlawful deduction from wages complaint failed. The tribunal held there was no written and signed variation increasing the salary to £40,000, and that the second instalment of £4,000 was therefore not 'properly payable' for the purposes of section 13 ERA 1996.

The sex discrimination complaint was dismissed. The tribunal held that the sequence of events from September 2016 to 19 December 2017 could be treated as a continuing state of affairs for limitation purposes, but it found that Mr Thompson was not an apt comparator because his role and responsibilities were materially different. It also found no evidence that a hypothetical male HR Manager would have been treated more favourably, and it did not accept that the June 2017 or 19 December 2017 remarks proved discrimination because of sex.

The constructive unfair dismissal complaint also failed. The tribunal considered the alleged salary dispute, the comments about absence and childcare, the text message arrangement, and the December 2017 conversation, but concluded that none of these matters, alone or together, amounted to a repudiatory breach or conduct calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence. It noted the positive tone of the resignation letter and the delay before resignation as inconsistent with the case that the claimant had been forced to leave. No remedy was awarded.