Mrs A Boettcher v Chine House Veterinary Hospital Heard: Remotely — 2020

Mrs A Boettcher had worked for Chine House Veterinary Hospital since 1999 and had been Accounts Office Supervisor since 2011. The tribunal accepted that there had been a long-running deterioration in working relationships in the accounts office, first with Geraldine Goddard and later with Gemma Dilks, but it found that management had tried to address the problems, including by placing Goddard on a performance development plan and later moving her to reception.

The claimant relied on a series of incidents in 2018, including the proposed move to the finance manager's office, comments said to have been made by Michaela Simmonds in October 2018, and the events surrounding the appraisal meeting on 7 November 2018. The tribunal rejected the claimant's account of several alleged incidents, including the allegation that Simmonds acted aggressively at the June 2018 meeting and the allegation of condescending physical contact at the November meeting. It accepted that Simmonds had expressed frustration at the recurring office conflict, but found that this did not amount to a breach of contract.

At the 7 November 2018 meeting, the tribunal found that the claimant had reported that Dilks had shouted at her, and that the discussion then broadened into wider concerns about the accounts office. It held that the partners and Simmonds were entitled to explore the background to the ongoing breakdown in relationships rather than immediately treat the matter as a disciplinary issue against Dilks. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not raise a formal grievance about the incidents she relied on before resigning, and that her resignation letter did not refer to those reasons.

Applying section 95 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited on constructive dismissal, including the implied term of trust and confidence, Western Excavating, Woods, Malik, British Aircraft, Post Office v Roberts, Omilaju, Meikle, Wright, Abbey Cars, Buckland, and Kaur, the tribunal concluded that there had been no repudiatory breach. It therefore dismissed both the constructive unfair dismissal claim and the wrongful dismissal claim. It also noted that the fact the claimant worked out her notice would not have defeated a constructive dismissal claim on these facts, but that point did not assist her because no breach was established.