Ms K Wilson v Represented by Mr R Morton - Solicitor Lucinda Ellery Ltd — 2024

Ms Wilson worked for Lucinda Ellery Ltd from 2016 and was promoted to Supervisor in the Edinburgh studio in August 2022, but the tribunal found she had not been given a job description or supervisor training and had received no prior performance concerns. In August 2023, after a visit by Chantelle Sheehan, the respondent began a disciplinary process about her supervisory performance and technical standard. The tribunal found that Kerry Duffy did not put specific allegations or the alleged client complaints to Ms Wilson at the investigatory meeting, and that the respondent anonymised witness material without any request from the witnesses.

The tribunal found that four of the six names listed as "recent client complaints" had been fabricated or, in the case of AM, deliberately misrepresented as a client complaint. At the disciplinary hearing on 30 August 2023, which lasted around 20 minutes and was convened on less than 48 hours' notice, Julie Lang failed to identify the alleged complainers when Ms Wilson asked who they were and did not ensure that Ms Wilson had seen the list of six names. The tribunal did not accept that the decision to demote her had been predetermined, but it held that the hearing was rushed, inadequately specified, and that the final written warning and demotion were disproportionate on the evidence before JL.

Ms Wilson resigned almost immediately after receiving the outcome letter on 1 September 2023. The tribunal held that the fabricated complaints, JL's failure to identify the complainers, and the imposition of demotion and a final warning each breached the implied term of trust and confidence, and that those breaches were effective causes of her resignation. It therefore held that she was constructively unfairly dismissed. Remedy was a basic award of £3,000 and an uplifted compensatory award of £2,303.21, made up of net pay loss, pension loss, and £500 for loss of statutory employment rights, giving a total award of £5,303.21. The tribunal made no reduction for contributory fault and applied a 25% ACAS uplift because of the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the Code.