In person For the v Ms R Omar - Counsel — 2018

The claimant had worked for the respondent since February 2012 as a supervisor at the Brent Cross store. The case arose after Mr Chaudry, her manager, was suspended following a grievance by Ms Michalkow, and the respondent then investigated the claimant's own complaints about telephone conversations with Ms Parisi and Ms Michalkow. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to manage the confidentiality of the investigation, including limiting access to store records, and that HR's role was advisory rather than decision-making.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the respondent's handling of the grievance process amounted to repudiatory conduct. It found that Mr Hart's grievance investigation was a reasonable and properly selective response to short telephone disputes, that the claimant's grievances were partly upheld, partly rejected, and partly treated as communication issues, and that the respondent acted within its management discretion in prioritising the more serious grievance raised by Ms Michalkow. The tribunal accepted that there were some imperfections, including that clearer separation between the grievance and possible disciplinary issues would have been better practice, but held that these did not amount to conduct calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's allegations that Ms Parisi, Ms Breen, and Mr Hart had lied or colluded. It accepted that Ms Breen's later account of the 28 August call was not fully accurate, but found that this did not amount to a lie and was broadly consistent with the tone and substance of the conversation. It held that the claimant resigned of her own volition after the grievance appeal process had run its course, rather than in response to a repudiatory breach by the respondent. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.