: Mrs. EA Farrell Mr. J Priestley Mrs. M Juszczyk v Represented by: In person Kettle Produce Ltd — 2017

The claimant, a Polish national employed as a Night Shift Hygiene Operative, brought claims of constructive dismissal, sex discrimination and race discrimination. She had also indicated age discrimination, but the tribunal recorded that this claim was dropped at the hearing. The tribunal's factual findings covered a long employment history, earlier grievances, a 2015 grievance about an incident with Mr Turnbull, and the claimant's resignation on 26 June 2016 after she had returned to work in April 2016 and later received advice from a new therapist that she should leave if work was causing stress.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal applied Western Excavating v Sharp. It accepted that the grievance outcome letter of January 2016 was unsatisfactory in tone and that the appeal process led Mr Strange to conclude that an altercation had occurred, but it held that the respondents were entitled to deal with the matter by saying Mr Turnbull would be spoken to on his return and warned about future misconduct. The tribunal also held that the June 2016 incident in which the claimant was told she was leaving the factory floor too early did not amount to a fundamental breach. It found that the claimant did not treat that as the final straw, that she raised no complaints about Mr Turnbull after he returned to work, and that she affirmed the contract by returning to work and continuing until the end of her notice period.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's treatment was because of her sex or Polish nationality. It noted that neither the claimant nor her witnesses gave evidence of any link between the alleged poor treatment and either protected characteristic, and it said there were no primary facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn. The tribunal therefore dismissed both the sex discrimination and race discrimination claims. The final judgment stated that the claimant was not unfairly constructively dismissed, that neither discrimination claim succeeded, and that the claims were dismissed.