Mrs K Heseltine v Cocketts Hotel Hawes Ltd t/a HBC (Hawes Business Company) — 2020

Mrs K Heseltine had worked at Cocketts Hotel since 1999. The Tribunal found that the respondent took over the business in October 2019 and that her employment continued with continuity. In late February 2020 she was given a Statement of Principal Terms of Employment that incorrectly stated a 1 March 2020 start date, no previous continuity, a probationary period, variable hours and a wage of £9 per hour, although she was then paid £10 per hour. The Tribunal found the document was a template not properly tailored to her situation and that, although it was incorrect in material respects, it was not implemented or imposed on her in the three weeks before she resigned.

The Tribunal accepted that there had been no discussion with the claimant about the document and that the respondent should have explained that some of its terms did not apply to her. It also found that, apart from the increased hourly rate, there was no significant change in her terms and conditions after the transfer, and that she had continued to work flexibly, including cottage-cleaning work that the respondent knew about. On 19 March 2020 she told Rachel Lambie that she was not happy and that things had changed, referred to personal circumstances including giving up her horse, and said words to the effect that she would clean cottages and things. The Tribunal found there was no discussion at that point about the new statement of terms or any refusal to work under it.

Applying the constructive dismissal test under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and Western Excavation (ECC) v Sharp, the Tribunal held that presenting the claimant with the new statement of terms, without more, was not itself a repudiatory breach of contract in the circumstances. In any event, it found that the document was not the causative reason for her resignation. The Tribunal concluded that she had resigned voluntarily, that the new statement was only part of the background, and that she had not shown she was constructively dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.