Member N M Richardson Tribunal Member S Larkin Ms I Jackson v Cygnet Health Care Limited — 2022

The tribunal upheld the claimant's dismissal claim and found that she had been unfairly constructively dismissed. It held that the respondent's conduct over about nine months, taken cumulatively, breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal found serious defects in the first disciplinary process arising from the 10 July 2020 incident, including inadequate investigation, refusal to show the claimant the CCTV material relied on against her, an inadequate grievance process, and a disciplinary outcome that introduced an allegation of falsifying documents that had not been properly investigated or put in advance.

The tribunal found that the claimant's mental health deteriorated as a result of the respondent's handling of matters, and accepted that she developed anxiety and depression after these events. It also accepted her evidence that, after returning to work, she encountered an unpleasant atmosphere and felt unsupported when raising concerns about standards of care. The tribunal concluded that the final meeting on 3 March 2021 was the last straw: although management may not have expressly ruled out a return to Thistle Care Home, the claimant reasonably understood that she would not realistically be allowed to return there and would face further difficulty if she continued to challenge practices she regarded as wrong. Her resignation on 19 March 2021 was therefore caused by the respondent's conduct.

The age discrimination claim failed because the tribunal did not find sufficiently clear or cogent evidence that the alleged comments or bus-pass remarks occurred in a discriminatory way, and one allegation was in any event apparently out of time. The disability discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found that the treatment complained of was not because of the claimant's stoma or breaks needed for it, and that any suggested reasonable-adjustments case was not established, including because the respondent lacked the necessary knowledge of any disadvantage in the existing arrangements. The whistleblowing claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that the disclosure to Public Health Scotland was protected, but found no causal connection between that disclosure and the later suspension or investigation.