Miss C Quinn v Momentum Scotland Ltd — 2019

The claimant, a job coach employed from 8 September 2014, raised concerns during 2017 about her treatment by colleagues and managers, including incidents at the Yoker office and the handling of her grievances. She sent a grievance email on 11 April 2017 and a further formal grievance on 27 October 2017. Only the claimant gave oral evidence; the respondent did not lead any witnesses.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not reply to the April 2017 grievance and did not progress the October 2017 grievance within the time required by the contractual grievance policy or the ACAS Code. The meeting on that grievance did not take place until 9 January 2018, and the tribunal found no good reason for the delay. It also found that the subsequent investigation was inadequate because the respondent relied mainly on Linda Fisher's account and did not speak to the other people present at the meetings the claimant complained about.

The claimant resigned on 12 February 2018 before the grievance outcome letter dated 23 February 2018 was issued. The tribunal held that the cumulative failures, including the handling of the grievance process and the earlier failures to follow up her concerns, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and the express grievance arrangements. It accepted that the claimant resigned because of the respondent's conduct, that she did not unreasonably delay, and that her later employment did not prevent a constructive dismissal finding. The tribunal rejected the argument that Mr Gill's involvement in the process was itself a breach.

On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant suffered no wage loss because she started a new job on 5 March 2018 at a higher salary. It therefore awarded only a basic award and a sum for loss of statutory rights, then increased the award by 10% for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. The later grievance outcome dismissed the grievance and the appeal was dismissed, but those post-resignation decisions did not alter the finding on liability.