Ms Susan Higgins v Abbeyfield Braintree Bocking & Felsted Society — 2020

Ms Higgins worked for Abbeyfield from 2013 and in 2018 stopped doing tea-time shifts after her husband was diagnosed with cancer. On 5 November 2018 she entered a new contract that preserved continuity of service but recorded her work as laundry duties only. The tribunal found she had agreed to that change, that the delay in signing did not amount to duress, and that her later grievance about loss of earnings and breach of contract was not upheld. It held there had been no unauthorised deduction of wages and no breach of contract.

The unfair dismissal claim arose after disciplinary and grievance processes in 2019 and a dismissal on 6 August 2019, followed by an unsuccessful appeal. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was a total and irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between the claimant and her manager, together with problems in relations with other staff and concerns about the claimant's conduct towards residents, rather than a conduct dismissal or retaliation for her grievance. It accepted that the respondent's process had weaknesses, including overlapping roles and a document from 26 June 2019 suggesting a decision to terminate had already been reached, and said the dismissal would have been unfair if it had been treated as a misconduct case.

Even so, the tribunal concluded that the genuine reason was some other substantial reason within s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996 and that the respondent acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It referred to Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, Gallacher v Abellio Scots Rail Ltd, and the band of reasonable responses test from British Leyland v Swift and Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.