ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103758/2022 Hearing at Edinburgh on and October 2022 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Sharon Brady v M-Brace Orthodontics Limited st and 1 other — 2022

Sharon Brady was employed by M-Brace Orthodontics Ltd from 18 December 2017, initially as a dental receptionist. In January 2021 she accepted a new practice administrator role for two days a week, but in late 2021 and early 2022 Mr Mahesh said the practice needed reorganisation and discussed a move back to full-time receptionist work. On 27 February 2022 he wrote to her setting out the change, including termination of the practice administrator role from 30 April 2022, an increase in receptionist pay to £11.50 per hour from 1 May 2022, and removal of the company sick pay scheme. She signed acceptance of the variation on 28 March 2022 and resigned on 12 April 2022, referring to recent changes within her contract and a lack of opportunity to progress.

The tribunal considered four alleged areas of breach: conditions within the practice, the removal of the practice administrator role, removal of company sick pay, and the conduct of Jan Palmer in the later notice-period correspondence. On the workplace-conditions point, the claimant said there were no proper changing facilities and that lockers had been searched, but the tribunal found those matters were not a significant part of the reason for resignation. It noted that neither the resignation letter nor the later grievance referred to them, and it was not persuaded that she resigned because of those issues.

The tribunal accepted that the removal of the practice administrator role was a significant factor in the claimant's decision to resign, but held that the respondent had not committed a repudiatory breach of contract. It found that Mr Mahesh had explained the financial and operational reasons for reorganisation in advance, met the claimant on 2 December 2021 and 11 February 2022, and then put the proposed variation in writing. Because the claimant expressly agreed to the variation, the tribunal held there was no unilateral change and no breach of contract. The same reasoning applied to the company sick pay change: it had been discussed with staff, included in the written variation, and accepted by the claimant.

The tribunal also rejected the complaints about Jan Palmer and the later dispute over notice and wages. It held that the correspondence about notice arose after the resignation had already been given, so it could not have caused the resignation. As to the April 2022 wage issue, the tribunal found there had been a delay in payment of £223.60, but not a loss of wages, and it accepted that the delay was caused by payroll and banking processes. The tribunal therefore concluded that the respondent had not constructively dismissed the claimant and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.