Claimant v McKenzies Solicitors — 2022

The claimant had worked for the respondent as an assistant cashier since 6 October 2010. She resigned with immediate effect on 4 July 2022 and alleged that a series of acts and omissions, beginning with furlough and continuing after her return to work in October 2021, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal found that during furlough there was some contact between the claimant and her line manager, Ms Cameron, by phone, and that the claimant was included in a WhatsApp group. It also found that the respondent's business had been severely affected by the pandemic and that the claimant continued to receive 80% of her wages under the furlough scheme. The meeting on 22 October 2020, at which the claimant was told that her role was at risk of redundancy, did not lead to dismissal, because the furlough scheme was extended and the claimant remained furloughed.

On the claimant's return on 1 October 2021, the tribunal accepted that her desk had been moved to comply with social distancing requirements and that she was not isolated from colleagues. It found that she was given cashier work and other tasks, including ledger work, filing, answering phones, taking mail to the post office, client identification checking and payment processing, although there was less work than before the pandemic. It also found that it was reasonable for the respondent to take around two weeks to arrange the requested meeting with the partners in November 2021.

At the 19 November 2021 meeting the claimant was asked to prepare and submit criminal legal aid accounts to SLAB, with training and support if needed. The tribunal found that the respondent was acting reasonably in seeking to allocate work where the claimant had complained that there was insufficient work, and it rejected the claimant's case that she had been bullied or intimidated at that meeting. It also found that the later delay in returning her call, the absence of wellbeing contact while she was signed off sick from December 2021, the short delay in responding to her phased return request in April and May 2022, and the absence of a reply to her 23 June 2022 email were not, whether individually or together, significant breaches going to the root of the contract. Applying the constructive dismissal framework, the tribunal concluded that there was no repudiatory breach and dismissed the claim.