Ms J Mehta v Hill Eckersley & Co Limited — 2020

Ms J Mehta resigned on 28 May 2019 and claimed that she had been constructively unfairly dismissed by Hill Eckersley & Co Ltd. The tribunal identified the core complaint as the respondent’s handling of her grievance and appeal, together with earlier complaints about her working relationship with Ms Mort, workload, an office move, payroll file notes, the tax-code incident, the Powerswitch file, and the absence of a return-to-work risk assessment after stress-related sickness absence.

The tribunal found that the relationship between the claimant and Ms Mort had deteriorated from around 2017, but it accepted that the respondent first dealt with the April 2018 “verbal grievance” informally, agreed to monitor matters, and later moved Ms Mort to a separate room in June 2018 when the situation worsened. It rejected the claimant’s case that the office move, the tax-code issue, the Powerswitch incident, or the handling of payroll notes amounted to bullying, harassment, or preferential treatment. Several of the incidents were found to be misunderstandings, ordinary management decisions, or conduct that was at most trivial.

The tribunal also found that the grievance process in March to May 2019 was handled thoroughly. Mr Nicholls acknowledged the written grievance, held a fact-finding meeting, interviewed Ms Mort, considered the claimant’s points, and conducted a recorded appeal hearing before issuing a detailed appeal outcome letter on 17 May 2019. It held that the decision not to uphold the grievance and appeal, save for one point about workload on return from holiday, was not conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.

The tribunal further held that the failure to carry out a risk assessment when the claimant returned from sickness absence in August 2018 did not itself amount to a breach of contract. It said that even if the earlier matters in April or August 2018 had amounted to a breach, the claimant had continued working without complaint for a sufficient period that she would have affirmed the contract. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the remedy hearing listed for 20 November 2020 was cancelled.