Miss Charlene Wilson v ’s partner)15 The Nail & Beauty Zone Ltd — 2023

At a preliminary hearing on 11 August 2023, Employment Judge M Kearns dismissed the claimant’s disability discrimination complaints and her arrears of pay claim relating to statutory sick pay. The Tribunal also held that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, so that claim was outside its jurisdiction. The remaining complaints for the final hearing were breach of contract (notice pay) and wrongful dismissal.

The claimant had worked as a Spa & Beauty Therapist from 3 January 2022 to 14 October 2022. The parties agreed that her contractual notice period was one month and that this was worth £798 gross, with hourly pay of £9.50 and normal weekly hours of 21. On 11 October 2022 she was given a letter stating that her employment was being terminated on one month’s notice, but later that day she sent a screenshot of that letter, marked "strictly private and confidential", to colleagues by WhatsApp. The claimant accepted in evidence that she did not disclose the letter in the proper course of her duties or under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.

On 14 October 2022 the respondent sent a further letter stating that the disclosure of the confidential termination letter was a serious breach of contract and that the claimant’s employment was terminated for gross misconduct. The Tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence about the events of 11 October 2022, found that the confidentiality provisions in the contract were engaged, and held that the claimant’s disclosure of the letter to three colleagues amounted to deliberate negligence of duties and a fundamental breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. It rejected the respondent’s reliance on the claimant’s alleged failure to attend work as gross misconduct, because the respondent did not take disciplinary action on that point.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled to treat the claimant’s breach of confidentiality as gross misconduct and to dismiss without notice. It therefore found that the respondent was not required to pay notice pay, that there was no breach of contract, and that the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. It also held that the claimant was not ready, willing and able to work for the short period between 11 and 14 October 2022, and made no award of notice pay.