Miss Lorraine Currie v Cats Protection Trustee Limited — 2022

Miss Lorraine Currie brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim after resigning on 14 May 2021 following the respondent’s response to her grievance and settlement approach. The tribunal recorded that she had been seconded to a Cat Welfare Manager role, that the secondment had been extended to 31 December 2020, and that she was told in late September 2020 that the fixed-term role would not be made permanent and that she would return to her substantive Adoption Centre Manager post from 1 January 2021.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Hill had raised the claimant’s expectations in early 2020 that the role might be reviewed for permanence, but it found there was no assurance that the post would be made permanent in December 2020. It held that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to delay wider strategic review work because of COVID-19 and could take workforce-planning decisions in the circumstances then prevailing, including leaving a permanent CWM role vacant rather than backfilling it.

The tribunal also considered the specific complaints relied on as part of the alleged course of conduct: the diary invite marked “Grievance”, the reference in the Forth Valley Adoption Centre newsletter to long-term sick leave, the alleged disclosure of the grievance to a volunteer, the comment about the claimant’s email to branches, and the 14 May 2021 letter. It found the diary invite issues were mistakes and not conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence; it found the newsletter wording had reasonable and proper cause in the context of managing the centre; it found no evidence that the substance of the grievance had been disclosed to volunteers; and it held that the 14 May letter was a detailed reply to the claimant’s own March 2021 email and was not repudiatory.

Looking at the respondent’s conduct as a whole, the tribunal held that it was not calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. It found the respondent’s communications had been frustrating and could have been improved, but there was reasonable and proper cause for the actions relied on by the claimant and no fundamental breach of contract. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the tribunal did not need to decide remedy or affirmation.