Mrs J Cooper v Vur Village Trading No 1 Limited — 2020

Mrs J Cooper worked for Vur Village Trading No 1 Limited as a sales and service advisor from 10 April 2017 until 19 September 2019. The claim was pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal recorded that the claimant resigned at an investigatory meeting on 19 September 2019 after concerns were raised that she had been dropping calls, and the respondent had treated the matter as potential gross misconduct. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had anxiety, had previously discussed it with her manager, and had an occupational health report dated 14 February 2019, but the report said she was fit for her role and did not have a disability for Equality Act purposes.

The tribunal found that the respondent’s investigation was at an early stage and that the claimant would have had an opportunity to answer the allegations in a later disciplinary process, but she resigned before that could happen. It accepted that the investigatory meeting was held without advance notice and without accompaniment, and that the claimant was left alone for about half an hour during an adjournment. The tribunal said those matters would have been better handled differently, but it found they did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence or a breach of duty of care. It also found that the respondent was genuinely investigating potential misconduct and did not wish to force the claimant out.

The tribunal found that the claimant herself raised resignation first during the meeting, repeated that she wanted to resign after being encouraged not to do so, and then signed a resignation letter stating that she wished to resign with immediate effect. It accepted that the claimant was distressed, but found that she never sought to withdraw her resignation. For that reason, the tribunal held that special circumstances or a heat-of-the-moment resignation did not assist her. As there was no dismissal under section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal did not go on to determine fairness under section 98(4), Polkey, contributory fault, or whether the alleged dropped-calls misconduct was made out.