Mr Grainger, Claimant’s husband For the v Mr Hine, Solicitor — 2022

The claimant, Mrs Amanda Grainger, was employed as a Registered CQC Manager from 1 August 2018 and resigned by letter dated 6 February 2021. She relied on a series of matters said to amount cumulatively to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and a constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal identified issues including an alleged tax underpayment, alleged criticism over staff departures, no new contract after the business transfer, pay as Care Quality Manager, lack of a mobile phone and laptop, exclusion from management meetings, comments about a foster child collection, an email about assisting a director, removal of Peter Masters from her team, and disagreements about quoting for work and the Cambridgeshire County Council tender.

The tribunal accepted that there had been a payroll error in August and September 2019 and that the respondents later paid £894.80 to HMRC, so the claimant did not have to repay anything. It found no evidence that Miss Finlayson blamed the claimant for the departure of two staff members. It also found that the mobile phone issue was not material once a phone was provided in 2019, that the claimant had been told only that her salary would rise from £26,500 to £28,000 after becoming CQC Manager, and that there was no commitment to £30,000. The September 2020 email was not a criticism of the claimant, the removal of Mr Masters addressed an existing tension, and the tendering and resource decisions were management decisions rather than conduct undermining trust and confidence.

Applying the constructive dismissal test in Western Excavating Ltd v Sharpe and the objective approach to the implied term of trust and confidence and the final straw principle, the tribunal concluded that it was not clear why the claimant resigned. It considered that the resignation letter, and later letters to the employer, did not read as a resignation in response to a repudiatory breach or a final straw. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not constructively unfairly dismissed and no award was made.