E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102609/20225 Held at Aberdeen on 15, and August 2022; 16, 17, 18, 23, and November 2022 and January 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Miss S Annand v Represented by Mr K Gibson Counsel Instructed by Mr N Fraser,20 Solicitor Samphire Subsea Ltd — 2023

Miss Sharon Annand was employed by Samphire Subsea Ltd from 12 March 2012 until her resignation on 21 February 2022. She alleged constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The tribunal preferred the evidence of Paul and Karen Soutar and Sarah Whitman on the disputed matters, and found that the claimant’s account was in several respects inconsistent with contemporaneous documents.

On the alleged 2013 assault by AL, the tribunal did not make a finding that the assault occurred because there was insufficient evidence to determine that issue. It did, however, find that neither Paul nor Karen Soutar knew the detailed allegation or its seriousness until July 2021, when the claimant first raised it in writing in connection with a TAQA proposal. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s conduct in 2015 and 2016, when AL worked in the offices again, was inconsistent with the claim that the respondents had earlier known of the alleged assault.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s bullying and confidentiality allegations. It preferred Karen Soutar’s account of the 18 February 2020 office incident, found that the claimant apologised afterwards by WhatsApp, and held that there was no bullying by Mrs Soutar. It also held that the March and April 2021 role changes, the outsourcing of some finance work, the Outlook calendar access change, and the direct debit changes were made for business reasons or with the claimant’s agreement, and did not amount to breaches of contract. The tribunal further rejected the alleged data protection breaches arising from the sick leave email and the later contact between Paul and Karen Soutar.

The grievance process was outsourced to Sarah Whitman, whose investigation the tribunal found to be professional and thorough, and none of the grievances were upheld. Although David Burnside on appeal identified some procedural criticisms, including that Mrs Soutar should have been interviewed and that the AL proposal was inappropriate on the claimant’s account, the tribunal held that those appeal findings did not establish an underlying breach of contract because they assumed AL was a known abuser, which the tribunal found was not the position. The tribunal held that the claimant’s resignation did not follow a repudiatory breach and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. It also rejected the respondent’s alternative argument that the claimant’s outside business activities amounted to misconduct or would have justified discipline.

The claimant’s bonus claim failed because the bonus was discretionary and no bonuses were paid to any employees in 2021. The only monetary award was for the mobile phone transfer issue: the tribunal held that the respondent failed to implement the agreed transfer of the claimant’s personal number and awarded £750 damages.