Ms A Tait v Represented by Ms L Hunter Solicitor Break The Silence — 2021

The claimant had been employed as the respondent charity's CEO since 2015. The tribunal preferred the claimant and her witnesses where evidence conflicted, and it noted missing respondent documents and inconsistencies in the respondent's witness evidence when making findings of fact.

The tribunal found that the respondent had been discussing restructuring through its FOG group, but that on 16 August 2019 the chair told the claimant that the respondent had decided to create co-CEO roles for the claimant and LC. It found this was the first time the proposal had been raised with the claimant, that there had been no prior consultation with her or the FOG group about a co-CEO model, and that the proposal was presented as a fait accompli. The tribunal held that this change, both in substance and in the way it was presented, was capable on its own of seriously damaging trust and confidence.

After the claimant challenged the chair at a meeting on 19 August 2019 and then went off sick, the respondent held an extraordinary general meeting on 2 September 2019. The minute recorded that the claimant could not return to work until an investigation was completed and that suspension on full pay as appropriate was applicable. Although the claimant was not expressly told she was suspended, the tribunal found that later steps were consistent with suspension: her remote email access was removed without discussion and a 13 September 2019 letter told her not to enter the premises until she had a back-to-work interview.

The letter from Mr Ogilvy dated 25 September 2019 set out 15 matters for investigation. The tribunal held that some items were historical, already addressed, or too vague to understand, and that the respondent had not shown reasonable and proper cause for framing the investigation in those terms or for using an external solicitor in the way it did. Taken as a whole and in context, the letter contributed to the loss of trust and confidence and was capable of amounting to the last straw.

The claimant resigned by email and letter on 27 September 2019. The tribunal found that she resigned in response to the breach, had not affirmed the contract, and was therefore dismissed within s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It held the dismissal unfair, rejected the respondent's SOSR case, and made no reduction for contributory fault, Polkey, or mitigation. The compensatory award was calculated by reference to wage loss after 1 March 2020, pension loss, and loss of statutory rights, less actual earnings, producing a total award of £17,307.98.