Mr L McAllister, husband For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant complained of a course of conduct by Ms Aries, including the 20 November 2018 parcel incident, criticism about working hours and timekeeping, and an email of 1 April 2019 about Monday sickness absence. The tribunal found that some of Ms Aries's conduct was unreasonable and humiliating, including a public dressing down on 20 November 2018 and copying staff into emails that should have been directed to management only. It also accepted that the April 2019 email implied, without proper basis, that the claimant may have been falsely absent, despite the managing director having accepted her reasons for sickness absence.

The tribunal accepted that those matters amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence at the point when the claimant first resigned orally at the end of April 2019 and confirmed that resignation in writing on 1 May 2019. However, it found that she withdrew that resignation on 2 May 2019 after a conversation with Mr Aries, who assured her that issues would be handled through him rather than directly by Ms Aries. By continuing to work until October 2019, the claimant affirmed the contract after any earlier breach.

As to the October 2019 events, the tribunal found that the claimant had made a serious mistake in sending commercially sensitive information to a supplier, and that Ms Aries probably spoke at length and with some heat about that error. It also found that the alleged restriction on access to the Accounts Folder on 16 October 2019 was an IT error, not something done by Ms Aries, although the claimant believed otherwise at the time. The tribunal held that the invitation to a disciplinary meeting dated 28 October 2019 was not, in itself, a repudiatory breach and was within the respondent's disciplinary procedure.

Applying the last straw authorities, the tribunal held that the disciplinary invitation did not contribute to any repudiatory breach in the required sense and therefore could not revive a right to resign based on earlier conduct. The claimant resigned shortly after receiving the invitation, but the tribunal concluded that she had resigned in response to the disciplinary letter rather than to a continuing repudiatory breach. It therefore held that she was not dismissed and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim without needing to decide fairness or remedy.