Harvinder Jutla v B&M Retail Ltd — 2021

The claim concerned whether the Claimant had been dismissed or had resigned. The Claimant said she was forced to write a resignation letter during a meeting on 7 May 2020 after being accused of theft. The Respondent said she was shown CCTV, admitted taking cash, and freely offered her resignation.

The Tribunal accepted the Respondent's account of the meeting. It relied on the evidence of the Respondent's witnesses, the meeting notes, the resignation letter, and its rejection of the Claimant's allegations that notes or signatures had been fabricated. It also rejected suggested motives connected to the Claimant's Covid-19 isolation, an earlier incident involving her husband, or the later store closure.

The Tribunal found that, although the Claimant may have felt pressure to resign to avoid disciplinary consequences, that did not make the termination a dismissal in the circumstances found. It concluded that she was not dismissed within s.95 ERA 1996 and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The Tribunal observed that offering a companion at the meeting and retaining CCTV would have been good industrial practice, but those matters did not alter its conclusion.