In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal held that the claimant resigned by letter dated 31 August 2018 and rejected her later attempt to recast the case as one where her resignation had been withdrawn by agreement and she was dismissed by the issue of a P45. The judge found that the grievance hearing after resignation kept alive only a possibility that the parties might agree to resume employment, but that no such agreement was reached.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal considered four alleged repudiatory breaches: lack of support over staff shortages, the transfer to shop 1835 in November 2017, the 2 July 2018 meeting said to be an unwarranted performance review, and the handling of the grievance submitted on 26 July 2018. It found that Mr Ross and others did provide support with staffing, advice, loaned staff and recruitment help; that the transfer had been mishandled in November 2017 but was not a repudiatory breach and had been accepted by the claimant by early 2018; and that the 2 July meeting was not a formal performance review but a response to the claimant's request for assistance.

The tribunal also found that the respondent initially failed to deal with the grievance because it had been lost, but that once the issue was discovered Ms Grieve and Mr Mannucci tried to obtain the grievance details and arrange for it to be considered. The claimant did not resend it before resigning. Taken together, the tribunal held there was no breach of the implied term as to trust and confidence, no constructive dismissal, and therefore no need to determine fairness under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Separately, the respondent accepted that not all accrued holiday pay had been paid on termination. The dispute was over the correct end date for employment. The tribunal preferred Mr Mannucci's calculation and ordered payment of £17.27 for untaken holiday as at the date of resignation.