Mr Kofi Asiedu-Berchie (litigation friend) For the v Respondent — 2026

Ms Margaret Aboagye-Berchie was employed by Royal Mail Group Limited from 18 February 1981 until 25 March 2024. In July 2023, closure of the Sunday Callers Office led to her reassignment to Sunday sorting work. The tribunal accepted that management genuinely concluded that the Sunday role required driving and that no suitable weekend alternative had been identified. However, because the resulting decision reduced her contracted weekly hours from 16 to seven, the tribunal found that she should have been consulted before the decision was presented to her. That treatment contributed meaningfully to an erosion of trust, although it did not alone constitute a repudiatory breach and was subsequently affirmed when she continued working without objection.

While absent with malaria in Ghana, the Claimant supplied medical reports, including one covering a management plan through 20 March 2024. During a call on 7 March 2024, Robert Blackman instructed her to provide medical certificates weekly and stated that her pay would be withheld if she did not comply. The tribunal found that he maintained this position despite the difficulties she explained, did not explore less onerous alternatives or offer to review the matter with HR, and gave no rationale beyond stating that it was policy. The policy said pay might be stopped and did not require the response he gave.

The tribunal concluded that the approach on 7 March objectively conveyed such a lack of empathy or concern for the Claimant's welfare at a time of vulnerability that it was likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, without reasonable and proper cause. It was a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the Claimant resigned at least partly in response to it. Alternatively, its cumulative effect with the July 2023 lack of consultation would have amounted to such a breach. Whether the reason was application of the sickness policy or a belief that the Claimant might not return, the approach was outside the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded.

The tribunal found that the other matters relied upon did not establish or materially contribute to the breach. These included the request to move a vehicle before management knew the Claimant could not drive, a July 2023 pay error that was promptly corrected, Mr Blackman's mistaken statement that she had rejected an occupational health appointment followed by an acknowledgment or brief apology, his request for information about medication, and the general use of telephone rather than written communications. It did not find that management intended to pressure her into returning to work before she had recovered.

The direct age and sex discrimination and age- and sex-related harassment claims were dismissed. The proposed comparators were not in materially comparable circumstances, and the tribunal found no facts from which it could infer that the Sunday-hours decision, its process, or the sickness-absence communications were influenced by or related to age or sex. It accepted that the Sunday-hours decision arose from closure of the Callers Office and the perceived need for drivers, while the 2024 approach arose from management's understanding and application of the sickness policy. The tribunal also stated that, had the July 2023 discrimination or harassment allegations succeeded on their merits, they would have been out of time because there was no continuing discriminatory state of affairs linking the actions of the two managers and it would not have been just and equitable to extend time.