Mrs J McTaggart v Community Maintenance & Environmental — 2019

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Mrs McTaggart, from the respondent’s chair, Miss Hamilton, and from Ms Coulter of CTSI. It found the case difficult because of limited documentary evidence and because Mrs Levett, who had signed the termination letter, did not give evidence. The tribunal accepted Ms Coulter’s evidence as credible and reliable, and also accepted Miss Hamilton’s evidence. It found Mrs McTaggart generally credible, but not reliable in some parts of her evidence.

The factual background was that Mrs McTaggart had long been involved with the respondent, had been its project manager, and by 2018 had reduced her hours and salary. In August 2019 the organisation faced severe financial difficulty, CTSI became involved, and a recovery plan was drafted for the Lottery-funded remakery project. On 27 August 2019 Mrs Levett signed a letter headed "notice of termination of employment". The tribunal found, however, that only the board had authority to dismiss the claimant, that there was no evidence of a board decision to dismiss her, and that Ms Coulter was acting in an advisory role only.

The tribunal also found the position unclear as to whether the claimant had resigned or been dismissed. It noted conflicting material, including emails in which the claimant said she had not resigned, but also evidence that she would remain only as a volunteer and that the intention had been for her to step aside. Applying the burden of proof, the tribunal held that the claimant had failed to prove that she had been dismissed. It referred to section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on redundancy and to Morris v London Iron and Steel Co Ltd 1987 IRLR 182 on cases where the tribunal cannot tell on which side of the line the facts fall.

Because the claimant had not proved dismissal, the redundancy claim failed and the notice pay claim also failed. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim in full. It noted that a time-limit issue had been identified at the outset, but it was not necessary to determine that question once the dismissal issue had been resolved against the claimant.