Mrs Sharon Marray v Grimsby Cleethorpes and Humer Region YMCA — 2023

Mrs Sharon Marray was employed by Grimsby Cleethorpes and Humer Region YMCA and most recently worked as Head of Finance and Information Systems. She had worked from home from March 2020 during Covid-19 and made a statutory request on 1 March 2021 to work from home permanently. The respondent refused that request on 10 March 2021 and the appeal was dismissed on 19 March 2021. The tribunal accepted that the refusal was based on a coherent business reason and noted that there was no written change to her contract placing her permanently at home.

The claimant said she had later been told at an SLT meeting that she could work permanently from home, but the tribunal rejected that evidence. It preferred the respondent's account, relying on the earlier refusal of the statutory request, the absence of any written confirmation, and later correspondence which did not record any such agreement. The tribunal also noted that the May 2022 appraisal recorded that home-based working had worked well, but also referred to the need to recognise the effect on other team members and day-to-day operations.

In February 2023 Ms Conway told the claimant that she needed to return to office-based working. After meetings on 6 and 8 February 2023, the respondent wrote on 10 February 2023 explaining why it considered continued homeworking detrimental to organisational performance and proposing a phased or blended return. The claimant resigned by email the same day, before the formal consultation meeting took place, and later put forward a proposal to reduce her status and duties and work part time, which the respondent did not accept.

The tribunal held that the express terms of the contract required office-based working and that the request to return to the office did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found that the way the request was made did not amount to a breach, because the respondent held informal discussions, explained its reasons, and was trying to find a solution. As there was no contractual breach, the claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. No remedy hearing was required.