Natasha Beckett v POhWER — 2022

Natasha Beckett had worked for POhWER since 2005 and was Service Manager of the Pan London branch. Her line manager from 1 April 2017 was David Beer. The tribunal found that over a period from 2017 to 2021 there were repeated concerns about Mr Beer's communications and management style, including the October 2019 email incident, the handling of the related grievance, later TOIL and mediation issues in 2020, and further complaints about his communications during and after the 2021 restructure.

The tribunal accepted that the October 2019 grievance was investigated, but found that the outcome was not told to the claimant promptly and that the email-monitoring protection put in place was ineffective. It also found that the Respondent did not properly follow up mediation or respond adequately to the claimant's continuing concerns, and that the February 2021 grievance was not progressed in accordance with the grievance process. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's ongoing complaints and emails should have alerted the Respondent to continuing problems affecting her wellbeing.

Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it had set out, including Western Excavating, Mahmood v BCCI, Omilaju, Buckland and the Kaur questions, the tribunal held that the Respondent's conduct cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned in response to that breach, treating her discovery on 16 September 2021 that the February 2021 grievance had not been pursued as the final straw. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's case that there was no formal grievance or that the contract had been affirmed by delay.

The tribunal held that there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal on the case advanced and therefore found the dismissal to be constructively unfair. Liability was decided in the claimant's favour, but remedy was not quantified in the judgment. The tribunal noted that the claimant had obtained new employment promptly after resigning and indicated that a remedy hearing would be needed if the parties could not settle.