Case 4102292/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone)10 Miss L Somerville v Represented by: Mr B McQuillan NSPCC — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102292/2018
- Decision date
- 25 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mel Sangster
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone)10 Miss L Somerville
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for NSPCC Childline from November 2009 and became a Supervisor in February 2012. In January 2017 the respondent consulted on national changes to shift patterns, including a proposal to increase live-shift ratios, but that proposal was withdrawn on 27 February 2017. The tribunal found that later discussions in March 2017 about running some Glasgow shifts with one supervisor, because they were regularly over-resourced, did not change the claimant's contractual terms or amount to a back-door implementation of the withdrawn consultation proposal.
The claimant began sickness absence on 31 March 2017 because of work-related stress. At the outset, she and her line manager agreed that she would telephone every few weeks with updates, and the tribunal found that arrangement was reasonable and in line with the respondent's sickness absence arrangements for long-term absence. The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that the policy required a face-to-face meeting after 15 days' absence, holding that the trigger points in the sickness absence policy were directed to short-term absence, not long-term sickness. It accepted that a structured face-to-face meeting and an occupational health referral would have been appropriate, but found there were no fixed timescales and that both steps would have been taken if the claimant had not indicated she intended to resign.
The tribunal also rejected reliance on the redeployment guidelines, because they applied only to employees under notice of redundancy and the claimant was no longer at risk of redundancy when absent. It found that the respondent had provided support principally through the line manager, that the claimant could have raised any concerns through the recognised trade union, and that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions throughout. The claim of constructive unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. The disability discrimination claim had been withdrawn and dismissed before the hearing and was not determined on its merits.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal held there was no repudiatory breach, no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that the claimant resigned because she had been unhappy in the role and disappointed that the enhanced redundancy package did not materialise, not in response to a breach by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination claim was withdrawn and dismissed prior to the hearing, and it was not determined on the merits. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.