Ms Joanna May (Solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2023

Ms Mansfield worked as a security officer at RAF Wyton from 27 May 2016 until her resignation on 2 March 2021. She alleged constructive unfair dismissal based on the employer’s handling of her sick leave, pay and holiday anomalies, return-to-work discussions, an occupational health referral, the conduct of grievance and disciplinary processes, and a claimed breakdown in trust and confidence. The Tribunal found that there had been some errors and delays, including a wrongly recorded holiday day and a £2.14 underpayment, but treated these as minor matters that were ultimately corrected.

The Tribunal rejected the allegation that she had been pressurised to return to work before she was fit, or that the employer had unreasonably questioned the authenticity of her sick notes by asking for an occupational health assessment. It also rejected the claim that confidentiality had been breached by the presence of Louise Titmarsh at the January 2021 meeting, finding that no confidential medical discussion took place and that her attendance was for practical and witnessing reasons. On the disputed 2 December 2020 return-to-work meeting and the 3 February 2021 control-room incident, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses and did not accept that Mr Sapstead had bullied the Claimant, shouted at her, or acted aggressively.

The grievance process conducted by Paul Cloke was found to be reasonable overall and two aspects of it were upheld: the misallocated holiday day and the £2.14 underpayment. The disciplinary process arose after Ms Mansfield left her post for about two hours on 3 February 2021, which the Tribunal said was potentially serious misconduct in a high-security environment. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had complied with the relevant accompaniment rules and the ACAS timetable point relied on by the Claimant, and that the initiation and conduct of the disciplinary process did not amount to a repudiatory breach or a last straw.

Applying the constructive dismissal authorities, including s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, Western Excavating, Woods, Courtaulds, Kaur and Omilaju, the Tribunal held that the alleged incidents did not, individually or cumulatively, meet the threshold for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found, as a separate reason for dismissal, that Ms Mansfield did not resign in response to the alleged breaches: her resignation was driven by concern that she might be dismissed at the forthcoming disciplinary hearing and by her apparent ability to secure other work quickly. The claim was therefore dismissed in full.