Case 2601384/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Cordon v Isa Lea Limited Heard vis Cloud Video Platform — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601384/2020
- Decision date
- 9 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Cordon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Cordon brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages. The tribunal found that on 4 October 2019 Mr Kerry swore at her during an IT training session, including saying "fuck off", after she questioned the timing of the training. It accepted that this was wrong, but it also found that the respondent investigated her grievance, held a meeting on 17 October 2019, and by 4 November 2019 had upheld the grievance and issued a written apology from Mr Kerry, which the tribunal accepted was genuine.
The tribunal rejected the allegation that Ms Cordon was given a final written warning without a hearing. It found that the correspondence and meeting notes showed only that disciplinary action was being considered and then not pursued, and that by 20 January 2020 the respondent was ready to hear an appeal. It held that the subsequent delay was caused by the claimant's side, because her solicitors did not provide dates for the hearing and instead asked questions the tribunal regarded as unnecessary. It also rejected the workload complaint, finding that Ms Cordon had not shown that her workload was objectively excessive or that the respondent ignored requests for help, and it rejected the allegation that Ms Zielinska bullied her when asking Ms Parsons to pass on a reminder about a £50 loan instalment.
Applying the Malik implied term of trust and confidence, Western Excavating, the last straw authorities including Omilaju and Kaur, and the objective approach in Tullett Prebon, the tribunal held that the only incident that might objectively have been capable of undermining trust and confidence was the 4 October swearing incident. However, Ms Cordon did not resign in response to that event and continued working for more than four months. The later matters were found either not to have occurred as alleged, to be innocuous, or to have had reasonable and proper cause, so there was no repudiatory breach. The constructive unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, the wrongful dismissal claim failed because she resigned with immediate effect, and the two hours' pay claim failed because the tribunal found the £20.60 payment in December 2019 satisfied the amount owed for the 17 October 2019 start-time adjustment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim dismissed. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and no resignation in response to the 4 October 2019 swearing incident or later events. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant resigned with immediate effect, so she was not entitled to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for two hours' pay dismissed. The tribunal found the £20.60 paid in December 2019 was the two hours' pay owed for 17 October 2019, not a separate bonus. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Malik v BCCI / Mahmud v BCCI implied term of trust and confidence
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd last straw principle
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council last straw test
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Tullett Prebon Plc v BGC Brokers LP objective test
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.