ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002752/2025 Hearing at Inverness on February 2026 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mandy Truslove v Simpson Plumbers Ltd — 2026

Mandy Truslove was employed by Simpson Plumbers Ltd as an Accounts Administrator from 11 July 2022. She said that from around June 2023 she felt excluded by colleagues in the office, particularly Kay and Leona, and that this continued until she resigned in May 2025. The tribunal accepted that the office was busy and that relations in the small office could become strained, but it found that the claimant did not clearly raise a broad, ongoing complaint about her treatment to Mr Iain Simpson during her employment.

The tribunal found that the claimant spoke to Mr Simpson on two occasions in May 2024. On the first, she raised that Kay was not speaking to her on that day; Mr Simpson explained that Kay was unwell and not speaking to him either. On the second, after Mr Simpson returned to the office, there was a short discussion in which Kay said the claimant was not pulling her weight and the claimant complained about not receiving enough support. The tribunal found that these were informal exchanges, not a written grievance or a clear complaint about a long-term pattern of conduct, and that Mr Simpson dealt with them in a reasonable and rational way.

The claimant made handwritten notes from 4 May 2024, but she did not show them to the respondent during her employment. She resigned on 22 May 2025 after securing another job in Peterhead, and her resignation letter thanked the respondent for its support and gave no indication that she was leaving because of treatment by the respondent. The tribunal held that she waited about 12 months after the May 2024 incidents before resigning, that the later recording she made on 27 May 2025 post-dated her resignation, and that it could not have caused her to resign. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, the tribunal held that there was no repudiatory breach, no destruction of trust and confidence, and that the effective cause of the resignation was the new job, not the respondent's conduct. The claim was therefore dismissed.