Mrs K Edwins v Artem Ltd — 2023

Mrs K Edwins had worked for Artem Ltd since 1996 and became Finance Director in 2004. In 2018 the founding directors began a succession process, recruited new directors and later chose Tobias Stewart as managing director. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the new-board process was a sham or that references to a “new young team” showed that she was being excluded because of age, sex or race; it found that the references were tied to succession planning.

The tribunal distinguished between several alleged protected acts. It held that the claimant’s 18 December 2019 email was a protected act because, read as a whole, it implied an allegation that Mr Kelt had acted on age in relation to Stan. By contrast, it did not accept that the 19 May 2020 email exchange about SB’s pay was a protected act. It also recorded that the October 2019 “old nag” remark to SW was out of time, although it described the remark as gendered and age-related on the merits.

The central events arose in 2020 around furlough, SB’s pay and a proposed finance review. The tribunal accepted that a finance review was genuinely proposed because of Covid-related pressures and a wish to streamline systems, and that the claimant had been given opportunities to comment through the SWOT and board papers. The key finding, however, was about the unscheduled meeting on 12 August 2020: Mr Kelt and Mr Stewart met the claimant without advance warning, told her the review would be open-ended, said that they had lost confidence in her, and criticised her attitude and communication without any prior performance process.

The tribunal found that what was said at that meeting breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It held that the respondent’s conduct was not justified, that the claimant resigned in response to it that same evening, and that she was therefore constructively dismissed. On the unfair dismissal claim, the respondent did not prove a fair reason for dismissal or show that any fair procedure had been followed, so the dismissal was unfair.

On discrimination, the majority held that the 12 August 2020 conduct was direct sex discrimination and direct race discrimination. The tribunal found that the burden of proof shifted on those claims, relying on the workplace context, earlier remarks about women and race, and the respondent’s false account of the meeting. It rejected age discrimination and victimisation, holding that the age-based allegations were not made out and that the protected-act allegations did not explain the dismissal.

The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s breach of contract claim for lack of notice. No compensation figure was fixed in this judgment, because the case was listed for a later remedy hearing. Most of the other event-based complaints, including the various harassment allegations, were dismissed.