E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100503/2021 (V)5 Heard by CVP on & August 2021 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members D McDougall J McCaig Mrs D Mennie v CHC Scotia Limited — 2021

The claimant worked for CHC Scotia Limited as an Aircraft Engineer from 3 April 2017 until 10 December 2020. She returned from maternity leave on 5 October 2020 and, after a disagreement on 6 October 2020 with Hugh Sutherland about how to carry out a task on an aircraft, raised a grievance. Mr Morton investigated, took statements from Chris Innes and Peter Randall, and concluded that there had been an altercation and a strong difference of opinion but no evidence of bullying. He gave both the claimant and Mr Sutherland the same outcome letter and proposed coaching sessions with Paul Dickens. The claimant resigned on 12 November 2020 and later sought to retract her resignation.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Morton, Mr Walker and Ms Sim over the claimant's account. It found that Mr Morton did not tell the claimant she was over-sensitive because she had just had a baby, and did not suggest that she had a mental impairment. It also found that the reference to coaching was explained as a response to the workplace dispute, and that the claimant accepted at the appeal hearing that she had misinterpreted the reference to Paul Dickens. The grievance investigation and appeal were found to be comprehensive and fair.

Applying s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Western Excavating, Woods, Malik and Kaur, the tribunal held that there was no breach of contract and no fundamental breach entitling the claimant to resign. It also said that, had it been necessary, the claimant had affirmed any breach by working her notice and attempting to retract her resignation. The tribunal therefore dismissed the constructive dismissal complaint and, alternatively, said any dismissal would have been fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaint under s.18 Equality Act 2010 was also dismissed because the tribunal found no evidence that pregnancy or maternity played any part in the respondent's treatment and held that the relevant events occurred after the protected period had ended. For completeness, it noted that there was no evidence of less favourable treatment of the claimant compared with a man in similar circumstances.