Ms L Drahan v The Gourmet Coffee Bar & Kitchen Limited — 2019

At the outset, Employment Judge Ainscough, sitting alone in Manchester, refused the claimant’s attempt to expand the list of issues, treating it as a late amendment under Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore. The additional factual allegations were not in the ET1 or the witness statement, and the tribunal held that allowing them would have caused greater prejudice to the respondent than hardship to the claimant. The case then proceeded as a constructive unfair dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, applying the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s complaints about the respondent’s response to competition at Stockport, the November 2017 performance targets, the June 2018 discussions with Nick Garnell, the invitation to a capability meeting, and the handling of her stress and grievance. It found that the respondent had addressed the competition concerns, that the sales targets were not unrealistic, that the June conversations were not rude or abrupt, and that there was no credible basis for finding that the claimant had been asked to resign. It also found that the respondent tried to investigate the cause of the claimant’s stress, but was unable to do so because she did not submit a grievance and did not attend the welfare meeting.

The tribunal further found that the job advert placed in July 2018 was for temporary cover while the claimant was absent, not a permanent replacement for her role. It held that the respondent was entitled to require a capability meeting before the claimant returned to Stockport, that asking her to attend the Wrexham meeting with travel time and expenses paid was reasonable, and that the grievance could properly be dealt with after the capability process. After the 12 September 2018 meeting, the parties agreed that the claimant would return as a floating manager in Crewe with travel costs and additional travel time covered, but she resigned later that day because she disagreed with the calculation of the additional travel time. The tribunal held that the alleged acts, whether considered individually or cumulatively, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract or destroy the relationship of trust and confidence, so the constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.