Mrs L Jones v Kammac Limited — 2023

The tribunal refused the claimant's applications to amend her claims and the List of Issues, so the case was determined on the pleaded constructive dismissal and sex discrimination issues. Mrs L Jones resigned on 18 May 2020 after querying how her April to May 2020 absence would be paid and after the respondent had held a 27 April 2020 fact-finding meeting about allegations raised by Claire Lennie. Earlier in 2018 and 2019, the claimant had been put on restricted duties after compliance concerns, then moved into new Head of roles, and she later received a Christmas bonus of £2,000 compared with £8,000 paid to Lee Crank.

The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal could not identify what the claimant's actual last straw was, and held that the pleaded sick-pay and return-to-work dispute was a genuine disagreement about contractual entitlement rather than a repudiatory breach. It also held that any earlier breach connected with the 2018 to 2019 compliance audit and role changes had been affirmed because the claimant stayed in work until May 2020, and that the bonus decision was a bona fide exercise of managerial discretion. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant was not constructively, and hence not unfairly, dismissed.

On sex discrimination, the only in-time direct discrimination allegation concerned the May 2020 decision to pay SSP for part of the absence. The tribunal found no suitable comparator and no facts from which sex discrimination could be inferred, and it rejected the claim. The earlier direct discrimination and harassment allegations, including the audit-related restrictions, title changes, bonus and alleged intention to exit her from the business, were out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time under s.123 EqA 2010. The unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay claims had been agreed between the parties and were to stand dismissed upon withdrawal, so no substantive monetary award was made.