Natalie Matanda v Perpetua in Perpetuum Ltd — 2023

Natalie Matanda worked for Perpetua in Perpetuum Ltd as a Part 1 Architectural Assistant from 29 August 2017 until she resigned on 19 July 2021, giving four weeks' notice. The tribunal held that the discrimination and harassment complaints were in time as continuing acts, and that the unfair dismissal claim was also in time. The claim failed because the tribunal found that the alleged final straw, namely being told on 19 July 2021 that she would have to undergo further skills tests and assessments, did not occur.

On the constructive dismissal issue, the tribunal found that the only requirement for Ms Matanda's progression to Part 2 was the production of her Masters certificate, as explained in Mr Senior's letter of 6 July 2021. It found no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and no basis for concluding that the respondent had acted in a way likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship. The tribunal also noted that Ms Matanda resigned after securing a new job and that her resignation letter described the decision as not easy and referred to the rewarding employment she had had with the respondent.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that Ms Matanda was paid £19,000 in the Part 1 role while Eleanor Davies was paid more, but it found that Ms Davies's higher salary came from her earlier employment with the legacy firm DPA and was retained when she moved to the respondent, with a later £500 increase for loyalty. It found that other Part 1 assistants were paid the same as Ms Matanda, that the 2017 second-interview skills tests were part of a short-lived recruitment practice applied to all interviewees in that period, and that the lunch invitation, computer allocation, and queries about the University of Nottingham agreement were not influenced by race.

The tribunal rejected the remaining allegations that Ms Matanda was given harder work, used as a symbol on social media, or had her skills and experience doubted. It found that her workload was commensurate with other Part 1 assistants, that much of the additional design and marketing work was volunteered or within her role, and that the social media posts were supportive rather than tokenistic. It therefore dismissed the direct race discrimination and race harassment claims and made no monetary award.