In person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant resigned on 16 August 2021 and worked her notice until 17 November 2021. The tribunal held that matters occurring after resignation could not support the alleged fundamental breach. It identified the legal question as whether the respondent had committed a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, applying the constructive dismissal framework under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Western Excavating formulation of a breach going to the root of the contract.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant held a senior Band 8C post as Associate Chief Pharmacist Clinical Lead, with a salary of £81,000 and significant clinical and managerial responsibilities. It found that the role carried a substantial workload, but also found that the respondent had supported the claimant through regular one-to-one meetings, probationary milestone reviews, appraisals, mentoring, coaching, training, and adjustments to workload and leave arrangements. The claimant’s flexible working requests were accommodated, including requests made before she started and again in 2021.

The tribunal found that the claimant had raised work-related stress and workload concerns and that a risk assessment and action plan were completed in spring 2021. It accepted that staffing pressures existed, especially during the pandemic, but found that vacancies had been addressed by early 2021 and that the respondent had taken steps to reduce the claimant’s direct reports. It also found that the respondent’s handling of issues around EPMA implementation and the senior pharmacist complaint was supportive rather than punitive.

On the evidence, the tribunal concluded that there was no basis for saying the respondent, or Ms Berns, was unsupportive, belittling, or exposing the claimant to excessive workloads in a way that destroyed or seriously damaged trust and confidence. It noted that the resignation letter did not complain of such conduct and that the claimant had at one stage said, with hindsight, that resigning may have been unwise. The claim for constructive dismissal was therefore dismissed.