Mrs J Ward Mr A Grant Ms Carole Dearie v Represented by:15 Mr G Woolfson - Solicitor Board of Directors of St Mary’s Kenmure and 1 other — 2022

The claimant, the Director of Services at St Mary’s Kenmure, resigned on 17 March 2020 after anonymous complaints were shown to her and Mr McKeown. The tribunal found that the respondents decided to deal with those complaints by means of an external staff satisfaction survey or review because the letters were anonymous and lacked sufficient specificity for a child protection investigation. It rejected the claimant's evidence that she had insisted on an investigation with child protection at its core on 16 or 18 March, and found that her contemporaneous resignation and retraction letters were instead concerned with the personal and professional allegations made by staff at SMK.

The unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal held that there was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence arising from the respondents' handling of the complaints, and that any prior alleged breach had in any event been affirmed when the claimant retracted her resignation on 19 March 2020. It accepted that Ms Sanderson told the Dochas House service manager that the claimant had decided to transfer staff to the secure unit, when the claimant had not made that decision, and treated that as a last straw incident. However, applying the objective test and the short period between 19 and 25 March, the tribunal held that the respondents' conduct, taken as a whole, did not amount to constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996.

The sex discrimination and harassment claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that earlier allegations from March 2018, January/February 2019 and February 2020 were out of time, and it refused to allow a just and equitable extension because the point was raised too late and the respondents would have been prejudiced. Of the in-time matters, the tribunal accepted that Mr Gillon said he had told Frank the claimant would have 'a meltdown', but found that this was said because he knew of the claimant's personal difficulties and was concerned about the effect of the complaints on her, not because of sex. It was not satisfied that the alleged 'wee girl' comment was made, and it concluded that the accepted in-time remark was not unwanted conduct related to sex for the purposes of s.26 Equality Act 2010.