Mrs Philippa Ratcliffe (Nee Burgess) v Ezytrac Employment Services Limited — 2023

The Tribunal held that Mrs Ratcliffe resigned, rather than being dismissed, when she sent her email of 10 January 2022. It treated that email as an unambiguous resignation: she said she had 'no alternative but to terminate' her employment, linked the position to her intention to bring proceedings, and asked for 12 months' gross salary and a reference. Her later email of 4 February 2022, saying the 10 January email was not a resignation, was rejected, and the Tribunal also relied on her text to Ms Messam saying she had written to the Respondent and 'I can't go back'.

Because the Tribunal found there was no dismissal, the unfair dismissal claim failed, including any argument under section 99 ERA 1996. Applying section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and Western Excavating v Sharp, it also held that there was no fundamental breach of contract or of the implied term of trust and confidence. The matters relied on by the Claimant, including the commission structure, the suggestion that Ms Messam would take over her role, alleged exclusion from meetings, the FARLA course, and the 4 October 2021 incident when she left the office after a midwife appointment, did not amount to constructive dismissal.

The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim also failed. Applying section 18 and section 136 EqA 2010, and referring to Igen, Indigo Design Build and Management v Martinez and Shamoon, the Tribunal found the Claimant had not proved facts from which discrimination could be inferred. It rejected her evidence about being excluded from meetings, the alleged 'no spring chicken' comments, the maternity risk assessment, the commission changes, and the suggestion that Ms Messam would permanently take over her role. The Tribunal preferred the Respondent's witnesses, found that the Claimant and Mrs Alegre-Wood had a close relationship, and concluded that the treatment complained of was not less favourable treatment because of pregnancy or maternity.