Ms L Basini-Millar v North Bristol NHS Trust: 1403940/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 1403940/2023

Between

Ms L Basini-MillarClaimant

North Bristol NHS TrustRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Ferguson

In person for claimant

Mr S Wyeth (instructed by counsel) for respondent

Date 19 September 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]It is the judgment of the of the Tribunal that: The complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Ferguson Date: 19 September 2025

[2]JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 13 October 2025 Jade Lobb FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/

[3]1 Case Number: 1403940/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms L Basini-Millar Respondent: North Bristol NHS Trust Heard at: Bristol Employment Tribunal On: 15-19 September 2025 Before:

REASONS

[1]By a claim form presented 4 July 2023 (following early conciliation from 23 April to 4 June 2023), the Claimant brought a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal.

[2]The issues to be determined were agreed following two preliminary hearings and confirmed at the start of the final hearing. The agreed issues on liability are:

[1]The Claimant claims that the Respondent acted in fundamental breach of contract in respect of the implied term of the contract relating to mutual trust and confidence. The breach(es) alleged are as follows1.1 The Claimant was suspended for 24 hours in 2013/14 due to an article about her in The Sun newspaper concerning her involvement in the TV programme "One Born Every Minute".

1.2 From 2014 until 2017 the Claimant was told that she was not good enough for a Band 7 position. Her applications for a Band 7 role were rejected at interview twice.

1.3 The Claimant was told by a Matron, Cathy Molloy that she was messy. This was in summer 2015 in an interview for a Band 7 Co-Ordinator role.

1.4 Sharon Jordan, a Band 6 midwife, encouraged Jenny Coker, a junior member of staff, to speak badly of the Claimant. This was in spring 2021. 2

1.5 In late 2021/early 2022 Jen Hurley complained to Sharon Jordan about the Claimant. The Claimant was not asked for her views about the matters raised.

1.6 The Claimant was asked to remove herself from the Band 7 staff WhatsApp group by Nicola Chinnock in October 2021 after she had requested help.

1.7 Concerns about the Claimant's platform on TikTok. The Claimant alleges that the concerns raised were unfair and unjustified. This commenced in September 2022 when the Claimant set up her TikTok platform until the Claimant left her employment.

1.8 The Respondent did not deal fairly with a complaint made about the Claimant by a Band 5 midwife. The Claimant was not told what she had done but it was suggested to her that she should come off being in charge or work under Bonny Hetherington's supervision or go on a leadership course. This took place from January 2022 until January 2023.

[2]The Tribunal will need to decide:2.1 Whether the Respondent behaved in a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the Claimant and Respondent; and

2.2 Whether it had reasonable and proper cause for doing so.

[3]Did the Claimant resign because of the breach? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the breach was a material cause of the Claimant's resignation.

[4]Did the Claimant affirm the contract before resigning? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the Claimant's words or actions show that she chose to keep the contract alive even after the breach

[5]If the Tribunal finds that the Claimant was constructively dismissed, the Respondent does not seek to argue that it was a fair dismissal. 3. It was agreed that issues relating to remedy, with the exception of whether the Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code as regards the Claimant’s grievance, would be left until after a judgment on liability. 4. I heard evidence from the Claimant. She also relied on statements from Matthew Perkins and Alison Blight, which were not challenged by the Respondent so they did not attend the hearing to be cross-examined. On behalf of the Respondent I heard evidence from Catherine Molloy, Victoria Mathias, Sharon Jordan, Juliette Hughes, Bonny Wood (née Hetherington, and referred to as Bonny Hetherington throughout the proceedings), Nicola Chinnock, Julie Northrop and Nicola Marvelly. 5. There was an agreed bundle of 583 pages.

FACTS

[6]The Claimant worked for the Respondent at Southmead Hospital as a bank Healthcare Support Worker from 2003 to 2006 while studying and training to become a midwife. She qualified as a midwife in 2006.

[7]The Claimant began her substantive employment with the Respondent as a midwife 3 at Southmead Hospital in October 2009. She was initially at band 5 and later became band 6. In around 2013/14 the Channel 4 programme One Born Every Minute was filmed at the Southmead maternity department. The Claimant featured quite prominently, and positively, in the programmes.

[8]In February 2014, shortly before the first episode was due to air, the Claimant gave an interview to the Sun TV Magazine, which was authorised by the Director of Midwifery and arranged by the Respondent’s communications team. When the interview was published on a Sunday, a colleague of the Claimant’s, who was the on-call midwife supervisor, telephoned the Claimant and told her she was suspended pending an investigation. This appears to have been on the basis of a mistaken belief that the Claimant had given the interview without permission. The following day the Claimant was due to attend further media interviews arranged by the Respondent, but did not attend due to the suspension. Someone from the communications team telephoned the Claimant to find out where she was. The misunderstanding was then resolved straight away and the Claimant attended the interviews.

[9]In May 2014 Catherine Molloy commenced employment as Matron of the Central Delivery Suite (“CDS”), Antenatal Clinic & Day Assessment Unit. She became the Claimant’s line manager. It is not in dispute that Ms Molloy would regularly remind the Claimant to put her hair up when starting her shift, and would often ask her to tidy up her hair if it had become loose during the day. Ms Molloy’s evidence is that she held all staff to the same standard of dress and often had to remind staff to take their cardigan off when going into a delivery room. It was clear from Ms Molloy’s oral evidence that she expects high standards of appearance generally from midwives as an element of professionalism. It is not in dispute that the uniform policy states that staff should ensure hair is clean, tidy and does not compromise infection prevention and control. The Claimant accepts that on some shifts her hair may have been a mess, and she does not suggest that Ms Molloy was not entitled to ask her to tidy up her hair.

[10]Ms Molloy accepts that on one occasion she said something to the Claimant about her hair being messy, when on reflection it was not justified because they were attending an interview together and it was the Claimant’s day off. Ms Molloy said she noticed a couple of days later that the Claimant seemed upset with her so asked her if that was the case. The Claimant said yes, she was upset by the comment. Ms Molloy apologised and the matter did not go any further.

[11]Ms Molloy introduced a “Transitional Programme” when she joined the Trust in 2014. This provided senior band 6s the opportunity to manage the Delivery Suite, supported by experienced Band 7s whom they worked alongside, for a period of three months. When and if they applied for a Band 7 post (in-house or externally), they would have some experience of working at this level and managing a very busy Delivery Suite.

[12]A vacancy for the role of Band 7 CDS Co-ordinator arose in 2017. The Claimant and some others applied. Another band 6 midwife, Bonny Hetherington, was appointed. The Claimant says that in the feedback she received after this Ms Molloy said that her messy appearance was the reason why she did not get the promotion. Ms Molloy accepts that she mentioned that she felt, at times, the Claimant could be unprofessional in how she presented herself on the Delivery Suite, i.e. her uniform, hair and occasionally she was loud and inappropriate. Ms Molloy’s evidence was that Ms Hetherington was appointed because she was the candidate who scored highest in the process, the decision having been made by a panel including an external person. The Claimant suggested in her cross-examination of Ms Molloy and Ms Hetherington that Ms Hetherington had performed badly in interview and she had her hair cut into a bob specially for the interview, which influenced the decision. Both witnesses denied those suggestions and there is no evidential basis for them. I find there is no reason not to accept Ms Molloy’s evidence that the interview panel genuinely considered Ms Hetherington to be a better candidate for the role on objective criteria. 4

[13]The Claimant participated in the transitional programme after being unsuccessful in this recruitment process.

[14]In late 2017 the Claimant expressed interest in a Band 7 secondment opportunity. The Claimant and another midwife were both appointed and split the role. Ms Molloy’s evidence was that both had recently been interviewed for the substantive band 7 position so she considered they could be appointed without further interview.

[15]Ms Molloy retired in April 2018. Nicola Chinnock became the CDS Clinical Matron and was the Claimant’s line manager for the remainder of the Claimant’s employment.

[16]In 2019 the Claimant applied for a promotion to Band 7 CDS Co-ordinator and was successful. Ms Chinnock was on the interview panel. The Claimant started in the post in July 2019. The Co-ordinator role involves managing the operation of the CDS, including allocating work to midwives, supervising them and carrying out clinical duties where needed.

[17]In July 2020 both Ms Chinnock and Sharon Jordan, who was the HDU Matron at the time, were made aware of an incident with a particular delivery which had been dealt with by a newly qualified midwife, JK. Ms Jordan says JK spoke to her privately afterwards and was in tears about the Claimant’s behaviour. JK told Ms Jordan that she had wanted a doctor to review the potential for an assisted delivery and the Claimant did not let her do that. Separately, another midwife, HB, emailed Ms Chinnock saying she was concerned about how the patient had been treated, based on a long chat with the patient prior to discharge. In particular she was concerned about examinations undertaken by the senior midwife, although she did not know who that was. She wrote, “I’m not having a go at anyone as I don’t know the full story, but just to warn you how [the patient] is feeling…”.

[18]Ms Chinnock discussed that feedback with Ms Jordan, who then went back to JK and asked if she wanted to make a complaint. Ms Jordan told JK that they had some further evidence to follow up her concerns if JK wanted. JK said no because she was really good friends with the Claimant.

[19]The Claimant says that JK telephoned her in tears late one evening saying that Ms Jordan had pressurised her to make a formal complaint against the Claimant. The Claimant claims JK also said that Ms Jordan suggested which words she should include within her written complaint. Another Band 7 midwife, Alison Blight, has provided a statement saying that there was an occasion following a “birth afterthoughts” meeting when Ms Jordan said to Ms Blight “You can’t say everything is fine to [the Claimant] when it isn’t”, and implied that JK was unhappy with the Claimant at the time of the delivery. Ms Blight queried this because JK had had lunch at the Claimant’s house the day before. She said it was not her role to discuss this with the Claimant, and that Ms Jordan should speak to the Claimant directly.

[20]Ms Jordan’s evidence was that she did speak to Ms Blight about this issue, but it was later. The “birth afterthoughts” meeting was about six months after the delivery. She asked Ms Blight if she could “back her” because the Claimant was causing distress to younger midwives, and she knew Ms Blight and the Claimant were friends so thought that the Claimant would listen to her. Ms Jordan strongly denies pressuring JK to make a complaint. Given that the only evidence that she did so is the Claimant’s hearsay evidence that JK told her that, and the Tribunal did not hear from JK directly, I accept Ms Jordan’s account, i.e. that she did go back to JK to ask if she wanted to make a complaint, but when she said no it was not taken further. When the matter came up at the birth afterthoughts meeting, Ms Jordan asked Ms Blight to speak to the Claimant about her management style, but she refused. 5

[21]On 5 February 2021 Ms Hetherington, who was a band 7 co-ordinator at the same level as the Claimant at the time, emailed Ms Jordan and Ms Chinnock, in her capacity as a Professional Midwifery Advocate (“PMA”). The role involves supporting and speaking up for junior members of staff. S Hetherington wrote: “I am writing to you to inform you that I have had three midwives come to me separately complaining of Lara Basini's conduct and behaviour at work. I feel that I need to escalate these concerns as the midwives involved (and I don't believe that these are the only midwives with concerns) are highlighting inappropriate, unprofessional and unsafe behaviours. I know that Lara has been spoken to in the past about certain concerns that people have had, but I now feel that something further needs to be done to address these problems. I have very little experience of working with Lara due to the nature of our shift patterns but have been told that staff members try to avoid working when she is co-ordinating because they feel unsafe when she is in charge. I have attached two individual complaints that have been sent to me. I know that you have had an e-mail that Sam Morris about an event that she was quite unhappy about. She came to me as a PMA and has asked that I remind you of her concerns (I'm sure you don't need reminding!).”

[22]The reference to Sam Morris relates to another midwife who had complained directly to the Claimant in September 2020 about her behaviour and also informed Ms Chinnock and Ms Jordan about the complaint.

[23]Ms Hetherington attached to her email a three-page document giving a narrative of two incidents in January. One recounted an incident where there was a dispute about pain relief being given to a patient. It was also said that the Claimant was “constantly off the unit, often on her phone…and not supporting the team”. The other alleged the Claimant had requested a midwife answer a call bell when she was in the middle of assisting a difficult delivery, and that she had kept the door to the delivery room wide open and argued with the midwife in front of the patient. The document concludes: “These are 2 of the most recent events I can recall with detail, however I do not feel these are isolated incidents. When Lara is in charge, the until feels unsafe and chaotic. She relies heavily on other senior staff to manage the unit, and does not support junior midwives appropriately, who have confided this to me. She is often in discussion with patients about her personal life, which although can be appropriate at times, is not her priority when at work. I have seen her openly reading solicitor documents on work computers, and seems distracted and preoccupied. I find it difficult to raise my concerns directly with Lara, as she appears to have a belief that being a Band 7 means she should automatically be right about situations, and doesn't take other people's views or opinions on board. She also has close relationships with very senior midwives, which make it difficult to speak out about concerns at the time.”

[24]On 9 February 2021 another CDS Co-ordinator emailed Ms Jordan with concerns about the Claimant’s conduct on shift two days beforehand. The email alleged the Claimant had been talking about her personal life loudly and was not engaged with the tasks in hand. On 17 March 2021 another midwife, Jen Hurley, emailed Ms Jordan to raise concerns about the Claimant’s behaviour on a recent shift. She described the Claimant’s behaviour as “unprofessional and verging on bullying”. She alleged the Claimant had undermined her clinical judgement and criticised her practice in front of a student. 6

[25]Around this time Ms Jordan discussed some of these complaints with the Claimant over the phone. Ms Jordan’s evidence is that the Claimant was defensive and denied the matters raised were true. The call ended with the Claimant saying she would talk to her union representative and Ms Jordan agreed to collate the written evidence. The Claimant accepts that she was upset and did not accept what Ms Jordan had been told was correct.

[26]Ms Jordan also met with the Claimant on 1 April 2021. Her evidence, which was not challenged, was that she said she was sorry the Claimant was unhappy during the telephone call, and said that nothing further would happen if the Claimant curbed her behaviour.

[27]Ms Jordan also discussed matters with colleagues and took advice from HR. She was advised to hand the matter to senior team members.

[28]Around the same time, on 19 April 2021, a band 7 meeting took place. At the meeting one of the band 7 midwives, BA, alleged Ms Jordan had coerced staff to complain about the Claimant. She also alleged that a complaint against a member of staff, which was understood to mean the Claimant, was based on gossip.

[29]In early May 2021 Ms Chinnock and Ms Jordan wrote to the Head of Midwifery sharing the concerns about the Claimant’s behaviour. They gave details of the concerns that had been raised and the difficulties they had encountered in discussing them with the Claimant. They wrote: “Nicky and I are passing this to yourselves, on the advice of Geraldine Allen, as we have tried to speak to Lara, but she does not accept that there is a problem with her behaviour. I have spoken to the midwives involved, as per all complaint procedures, but during the Band 7 meeting was accused by [BA] of coercion by looking into these cases. This was felt as very personal, and has made further investigation/planning for any training or discussions impossible. We welcome your thoughts.”

[30]Ms Jordan said that largely because of the criticism she had received in the meeting on 19 April she decided to retire from the matron role and go back to working as a band 6 midwife.

[31]It appears no further action was taken by senior management as a result of the email from Ms Chinnock and Ms Jordan.

[32]In August 2021 Ms Hetherington, who was by this stage a ward manager, made an enquiry with the communications team about the Claimant’s TikTok account. The Claimant had by this time started a private TikTok channel which consisted of videos of the Claimant giving advice to women about maternity and labour issues. The communications team responded saying that the videos did not appear to breach the social media policy, but it would be worth giving the Claimant a gentle reminder of the policy. Vicki Mathias, external communications manager, advised a light touch, noting there had been some “unkind comments to [the Claimant] from a senior midwife” over the Sun article. She said she got the impression at that time it was either jealousy or they had not liked the Claimant’s approach. She said the communications team would consider working with the Claimant in the future.

[33]Ms Hetherington did speak to the Claimant after this and reminded her of the social media policy.

[34]In November 2021 an issue arose relating to a WhatsApp group for band 7 midwives. This was not an official Trust WhatsApp group, but had been set up by the midwives themselves, for example to request cover when needed. The Claimant says 7 she posted on the group to ask if anyone could take over from her as she was feeling unwell. The Claimant’s evidence about what happened next was not at all clear, but it seems she faced some criticism from colleagues afterwards for her mobile phone use while on shift. The Claimant says that Ms Chinnock contacted her and suggested she remove herself from the group as the Claimant had upset the group. Ms Chinnock accepts she suggested the Claimant remove herself from the group, but says it was in response to the Claimant saying that being in the group was not good for her mental health. That is consistent with the text messages in the bundle between the Claimant and Ms Chinnock. Ms Chinnock said to the Claimant, “Stop stressing about it, you obviously weren’t well…”. The Claimant responded saying she felt she did not fit in, and felt she was constantly pulled up on stuff when other people were doing a worse job. She wrote: “It’s just the way the nhs is. And I'm square peg! And I'm noticed all the time! I've come off that band seven group chat! And I feel bloody free!” Ms Chinnock responded “That’s probably a good idea to come off chat”.

[35]In April 2022 a number of managers became aware of a TikTok video posted by the Claimant. The video was not adduced in evidence but it is not in dispute that it consisted of the Claimant advocating sex as a method to bring on labour. There is also no dispute that that is clinically acceptable advice. Ms Hetherington, Ms Chinnock, Julie Northrup (who had become Head of Midwifery and Nursing in January 2022 and was Ms Chinnock’s line manager) and Juliette Hughes (Divisional Director of Nursing for Women and Children, who was Ms Northrup’s line manager), all gave evidence to the Tribunal that they considered the video was sexualised and could be deemed to be unprofessional and inappropriate, and that the Claimant could have been linked to the Trust because of her involvement in One Born Every Minute, which also appeared on her TikTok channel. Ms Chinnock’s evidence was that she had been made aware of the video by Su Monk, the Chief Nursing Officer, who was also concerned about it.

[36]Ms Hughes had a telephone discussion with the Claimant about the video and asked her to take it down. The Claimant refused to do so.

[37]On 29 April 2022 Ms Chinnock met with the Claimant and asked her to remove the video and to close the account. The Claimant again said she did not want to take it down. Either during that meeting or in a separate meeting around the same time Ms Chinnock had a discussion with the Claimant about junior staff finding the Claimant unapproachable. Ms Chinnock discussed the Claimant having some coaching and the possibility of working with another band 7 to gain insight into how others work.

[38]On 30 April 2022 the Claimant sent an email to Ms Chinnock, Ms Hughes, Ms Hetherington and Ms Northrop entitled ‘something needs to change’.

[39]The Claimant set out an account of her “journey” with the Trust. She said she had “fought on and off the whole time to prove my worth and try to make the establishment understand me and see me for who I am”. She alleged she has to watch others do things she is not allowed to do, such as being “vibrant and funny”, talking about a partner or an ex or looking at her phone during a break. She said she received negative reaction from colleagues to her involvement in One Born Every Minute. She then said that becoming a band 7 had been tough, and she felt she was constantly having to prove her worth. She alleged Ms Jordan had encouraged a junior member of staff to speak badly of her. This referred to the JK incident. She also mentioned the Jen Hurley incident, saying that this had been used in a meeting about a year ago to say that she did not manage well. The Claimant then defended her TikTok channel. She then said “I understand the latest thing is a couple of band fives find me unapproachable”. She said she had not been given the scenarios, which would help her see where she has gone wrong and put her side of the story.

[40]The Claimant wrote, “I cannot go on like this. I am on the floor. I understand our roles and jobs are ever evolving and life long learning but surely it is not just me who 8 could benefit from a management leadership type course?”

[41]The email ended with a request to meet and find a way forward.

[42]A meeting took place on 4 May 2022 between the Claimant, Ms Chinnock and Ms Northrup. No notes were taken of the meeting. None of the witnesses have given any evidence of what was discussed at the meeting, but the emails prior to the meeting show that the intention was to discuss the Claimant’s email. At the end of the meeting it was agreed a further meeting would be held to continue the discussions. There was no correspondence before the Tribunal about arranging this meeting, but Ms Northrup’s evidence was that it did not go ahead due to the Claimant being unwell and on annual leave, and the unit being extremely busy.

[43]Around this time, Ms Hetherington asked the Claimant to submit a profile to be circulated on social media for International day of the midwife. The Claimant did so.

[44]On 26 June 2022, Mary Lynch, a senior midwife coordinator, emailed Ms Chinnock and Ms Northrup reporting that she was aware of two members of staff who had had difficulties with the Claimant recently. One was said to have gone home upset and felt like leaving. The other was “tearful and upset from working with [the Claimant] on Friday and said she felt undermined, unsupported and finds working with [the Claimant] very challenging.” Ms Lynch said that the Claimant’s behaviour was unchallenged, and that band 6s look at the rota and many try to swap their shifts if the Claimant is on.

[45]Ms Northrup emailed Ms Chinnock the following day as follows: “Once again we seem to be talking about Lara. I think we should seek advice from Nic Marvelley and speak to Lara and try and nip this in the bud. We clearly need to help her understand how to be a compassionate leader. She also needs to book on the civility training as a matter of urgency. Is there evidence of her behaviour in her personal file? We cant have staff leaving work in tears feeling undermined and wanting to leave. Please can you address this as a matter of urgency. I'm happy to support help as required.”

[46]It is unclear what was said to the Claimant, but it appears that a meeting was proposed. The Claimant emailed Ms Chinnock, Ms Northrup and Ms Hughes on 27 June 2022 saying, “If this has anything to do with the [SH] conflict at the weekend or the [JW], that I would like the patients pulled and asked their perspective”. She then gave her account of two incidents involving those members of staff. Ms Chinnock replied that they needed to have the meeting to continue the conversation that was started a few weekend ago. She said that neither SH or JW had come to her. The meeting was arranged for 4 July 2022.

[47]Ms Chinnock’s evidence was that SH did contact her about the incident the Claimant had mentioned and that she asked SH to put it into an email. She did so on 29 June. SH said she felt the Claimant had undermined her in front of the patient.

[48]Another midwife, JC, had also approached Ms Chinnock and Ms Hetherington raising concerns about the Claimant’s behaviour on shifts over the previous few months.

[49]Ms Chinnock’s evidence was that the individuals who had raised concerns about the Claimant’s behaviour asked to remain anonymous. Ms Chinnock says in her witness 9 statement: “I considered that this was a reasonable request and a conversation could be held with the Claimant to informally discuss these concerns without having to discuss specific details or names. I also did not anticipate that the concerns would require a formal process to be followed and that an informal discussions with the Claimant would likely achieve the desired result of her understanding the issues and being able to develop.”

[50]The meeting took place on 4 July 2022 with Ms Chinnock and Ms Northrup. The Claimant was accompanied by a colleague, Matthew Perkins. It is not in dispute that concerns about the Claimant’s management style and professionalism were discussed. Details of the complaints and concerns that had been raised were not shared with the Claimant. Ms Chinnock’s follow-up email the following day states: “Many thanks for attending the meeting with myself and Julie yesterday afternoon, it was good that we were all able to be open , honest, and transparent with each other during the discussions. We discussed it wasn't a disciplinary but an open and frank conversation. We discussed some issues that had been raised with me by staff on the unit, these were around your professionalism on shifts, taking over the care of a mother, chaotic shifts, which in turn has meant some staff not wanting to work the same shifts as you. We voiced this wasn't acceptable as we need the staff to feel able to come to work and approach the Band 7 if they had any issues on the shift. This to ensure we have a safe and effective unit. You were able to voice your thoughts on some of these issues and why you felt they had occurred. You acknowledged in the past you had been vocal in room 10 about aspects of your personal life but didn't anymore after previous discussions with me. We discussed courses that would be useful for you to attend to further your knowledge and equip you with more skills, you were happy to do this to help with your own development. Options given to you by Julie were, not be in charge for the next 8 weeks, which you weren't happy with, or to work with Bonny once a week, which you were keener to do. You wanted some time to think it through and discuss with other friends and would meet with us next week with your preferred choice or any other options you think may work. Again thank-you for attending the meeting with us both, we will wait to hear your decision next week with the next steps.”

[51]On 7 July 2022 the Claimant replied: “Thank you for meeting with me. It has helped to hear some positives about my contribution to North Bristol Trust and I felt that you do value me as a team member with high clinical and personal skills. l am still slightly confused as to where the issue lies as I have of course steered the ship on many a chaotic shift but always had immense feedback from the consultant in charge of that shift and the consultant aneasthetist and to be fair many of the staff… I would love to do a leadership and management course and feel this is something we could all benefit from but I am happy to lead the way with this. I don't feel comfortable with not being In charge as it feels very much like a 10 punishment and I don't quite know what we will achieve with it, in terms of breaking down these perceptions of me. I feel much the same about Bonny working with me as it was only a month ago Bonny commended me on the vast improvement and how I had taken on board how to be NHS standard of professional. This coupled with the fact that Bonny has worked closely with me for my whole 20 years of service, means she truly knows me inside and out already. There would be nothing new for her to see. … I have reflected majorly since we met and I understand that my personality is huge and I don't acknowledge always that this can be intimidating but I truly am the most kind and honest person who is genuinely passionate about what we all do. I have realised the women do gravitate towards me and I am working on how I can still prioritise the woman whilst enabling their midwife to feel Important to them. Having discussed this aspect with the other band sevens, they also say, the title means that the women look to them, so this coupled with my one born thing, which turns out has been the bane of my life and then my exhuberance, I'm realising probably can make some feel that I am taking over. I am reflecting and working out how to manage this without minimising who I am.”

[52]Ms Northrup replied on 13 July 2022, by which time a further meeting had been proposed the following week. She wrote: “I note from your e-mail on the 7th July 22 that you have stated you are feeing slightly confused where the issue lies. There will be an opportunity to clarify further at our next meeting, as it is important that you understand the nature of any concerns and what needs to change in the future. I also note you are not comfortable with some of the suggestions made during our last meeting and I am sorry to hear this. I can reassure you that the suggestions made by myself and Nic were coming from a supportive perspective, however, we can, of course, discuss any other ideas/interventions that you feel would be helpful for you. I look forward to hearing your ideas in terms of what support you feel would be beneficial to you that will help to address the concerns raised. That’s really positive to hear that you would like to attend some leadership and management training and I would be more than happy to support you with this. It’s also really positive to hear that you have been reflecting and we look forward to discussing this further as well. In terms of our next meeting, please do feel that you can bring your union representative with you if you would like. It is also fine if you choose not to do so as this is an informal meeting. The purpose of the meeting is for us all to agree a positive way forward for all concerned.”

[53]The Claimant responded on 15 July thanking Ms Northrup for the email and saying it felt “warm and positive”.

[54]The meeting then could not take place because Ms Chinnock was on sickness absence for some months. It was rearranged for 7 November 2022, but Ms Northrup was unwell on the day of the meeting. It was rescheduled to 2 December 2022.

[55]In the Claimant’s witness statement she says “Matters worsened further in October/ 11 November 2022. I was yet again faced with allegations that I had apparently committed some misdemeanour or there were concerns with my conduct”. The Claimant has not, however, given any evidence about who communicated such concerns to her or when, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal of the Respondent having raised anything further with the Claimant around this time.

[56]In early October 2022 the Claimant applied for a sales role with a medical sales company. She attended a second round interview on 3 November, was offered the post and signed the contract on 10 November 2022.

[57]Sometime on or shortly before 7 November 2022, the Claimant applied for a one-year employment break (sabbatical) from the Respondent. She said in the application form “I have had a turbulent few years personally but in the main have felt bullied and harassed at different points over my long career at NBT and feel it’s time to take time out to heal from this. I have two young boys who I feel have not had me present.” The Claimant also said it would give her more time to be there for her aging mother.

[58]By the time the application was considered by Ms Chinnock and Ms Northrup they were aware that the Claimant had accepted the offer of the sales role.

[59]The application was declined on 16 November 2022 because the Claimant would be leaving to take up paid employment, which was not in accordance with the policy. The policy states: “An employment break will not normally be allowed for a member of staff to take up other paid employment except where, for example, work overseas or charitable work could broaden experience.”

[60]On 22 November the Claimant emailed Ms Chinnock and Ms Northrup: “I am saddened to see that my sabbatical was declined I had heard through the grapevine that this had been declined prior to being officially notified! It does seem a shame and adds to me feeling undervalued as obviously would have been great to take the time out and come back with renewed vigour and new leadership skills especially given the retention drive and given the current climate! Also hard as others are mixing travelling with paid work but it is what it is! I have a start date of the 6" February for my new post. I am sad to be leaving a job I love.”

[61]Ms Chinnock responded on 28 November: “I am sorry to see you go and would also like to thank-you for all your hard work over the years. As you know we did discuss the sabbatical and your reasons for wanting it, however it can't be granted for you to do different paid employment. Other staff that have been granted sabbaticals that are going to be working are doing it in midwifery, this will enhance their skills when they return. l will process your leavers forms this week to ensure you can leave when you need to. Are you still wanting to remain on the bank?”

[62]The Claimant replied asking to be kept on the bank.

[63]It was agreed the Claimant’s final date of employment would be 5 February 2023. 12

[64]On 30 November 2022 Ms Northrup wrote to the Claimant suggesting that in view of her resignation an exit interview should be arranged instead of the follow up meeting on 2 December 2022. The Claimant agreed.

[65]The exit interview took place on 2 December, conducted by Ms Chinnock.

[66]On 5 December the Claimant emailed Ms Chinnock saying she wished to raise a grievance.

[67]On 7 December the Claimant raised a grievance via email to Ms Northrop. The Claimant was signed off sick for a two-week period around this time.

[68]On 21 December Nicola Marvelley, Divisional People Business Partner, wrote to the Claimant in response to the grievance. She wrote: “We have received your grievance via e-mail on the 7" December 22 and I am sorry to hear that you feel that you haven't been treated fairly and that you feel stressed. We have also received your subject access request. I have today had the opportunity to chat to your union representative, Shaun Fleming, and following this I would like to make a suggestion that will hopefully help you to achieve closure and to move forward from this. I would like to suggest that we respond formally via a letter to the issues you have raised in your e-mail (dated 7th Dec). This would include confirming that there is nothing on your records in relation to any performance concerns and that no formal process is in place. I understand that you have attended a few meetings where feedback has been shared with you (from sources who wish to remain anonymous) but I can confirm there are no plans to escalate this further. We recognise that there have been some delays in terms of the timings of the meetings and will, of course, look to see if there is any learning that can be put in place in the future. I note that you have now resigned from your role and are currently off sick. We are happy to have you to continue working with us during your notice period and would like to offer any support that would be helpful for you at this time. I propose that we send the letter to you next week, which would include all of the above and ask that, if this is the case, would you consider withdrawing your grievance and subject access request?”

[69]The Claimant replied on 2 January. She wrote: “After much consideration, I have decided to accept the apology offered and wish to draw a line under what has been an incredibly difficult and upsetting experience for me. Please take measures to ensure others are not treated the same way and let encourage those with sparkle to shine brightly for your trust! I still love North Bristol NHS Trust. I started there in 2002 and I have so many wonderful stories and memories from the old building working as a bank healthcare assistant all over the hospital, whilst I was studying to be a midwife, to my years in maternity. You have so many fantastic people and so much potential within your walls! I would love to work my notice and hopefully at some point maintain my registration with bank shifts.”

[70]The Claimant did work remainder of her notice period. 13

[71]The Claimant met with Ms Marvelly for a further discussion on 25 January 2023. It is not in dispute that the Respondent did not provide a formal letter as indicated in the email of 21 December. It is also undisputed that the Claimant did not specifically request it.

[72]The Claimant relies on an email exchange disclosed for these proceedings which in which a further concern was raised by a community midwife about the Claimant on 1 February 2023. A patient had said that the Claimant created a TikTok video she believed was about her. The patient was not offended or angry, but the midwife raised a concern about it. It appears the patient was asked if she wanted to make a complaint. Ms Northrup then said “even if she doesn’t though we need to follow this up”.

[73]The Claimant’s employment ended on 5 February 2023. The Claimant continued to work for the Respondent as a casual bank midwife on the CDS until 7 March 2023 when she resigned from the bank.

[74]Later in March 2023 the Respondent raised concerns with the NMC about an incident while the Claimant was working as a bank midwife. The NMC ultimately concluded there was no case to answer. The Claimant at various times during the hearing sought to introduce evidence of the Respondent’s conduct during the NMC investigation, but she was unable to point to any evidence that was relevant to the issues in this case.

[75]It should be noted that during the Claimant’s cross-examination she said for the first time that she had sent a resignation email to Ms Chinnock prior to her application for a sabbatical, i.e. before 7 November 2022. No such document has been produced. The Claimant did not put to Ms Chinnock in cross-examination that there was such an email. I do not accept the Claimant’s assertion that there was.

[76]As to the reason for her resignation, the Claimant’s evidence in her witness statement is as follows: “Persistent feelings of being bullied, harassed, targeted and treated differently to my peers culminated in my tendering my resignation in November 2022. All these events had taken a serious toll on my health and well-being, my blood pressure had worsened and my self-confidence had been eroded. I had done all I could to seek to resolve the workplace issues and despite promises of resolution, these never came to fruition. Ultimately, I reached the point where I no longer had any faith or trust in NBT as my employer.”

[77]The Claimant also gave evidence that shortly before her resignation she discovered some staff were in a WhatsApp group, in which the Claimant’s TikTok videos were being discussed. The Respondent does not dispute this, but says it was a private WhatsApp group over which the Trust had no control. It is not in any event relevant to the issues because the Claimant does not rely on it as an act that led to a breach of the implied term.

[78]The Claimant also seeks to rely on a number of character references included in the bundle, most of which were produced for the NMC proceedings. I have read them and accept that she is well regarded by many.

THE LAW

[79]Section 95(1)(c) of the ERA provides: 95 Circumstances in which an employee is dismissed 14 (1) For the purposes of this Part an employee is dismissed by his employer if (and, subject to subsection (2) . . ., only if)— … (c) the employee terminates the contract under which he is employed (with or without notice) in circumstances in which he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct.

[80]Dismissals pursuant to section 95(1)(c) are known as constructive dismissals.

[81]Four conditions must be met in order for an employee to establish that he or she has been constructively dismissed: 81.1. There must be a breach of contract by the employer. This may be either an actual or anticipatory breach. 81.2. The breach must be repudiatory, i.e. a fundamental breach of the contract which entitles the employee to treat the contract as terminated. 81.3. The employee must leave in response to the breach. 81.4. The employee must not delay too long before resigning, otherwise he or she may be deemed to have affirmed the contract. (Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp

[1978] ICR 221

; WE Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook

[1981] ICR 823

)

[82]An employer owes an implied duty of trust and confidence to its employees. The terms of the duty were set out by the House of Lords in Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA

[1997] ICR 606

and clarified in subsequent case-law as follows: “The employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee.”

[83]Any breach of this term is necessarily fundamental and entitles an employee to resign in response to it (Morrow v Safeway Stores Ltd

[2002] IRLR 9

[84]Consideration of whether conduct is “likely” to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust must be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person in the claimant’s position. The question is not whether the trust of the employee was in fact destroyed or seriously damaged, but whether the employer’s conduct would have that effect on a reasonable person in the particular circumstances (Tullett Prebon v BCG Brokers LP

2011 IRLR 420

, CA).

CONCLUSIONS

[85]I will address each of the matters relied upon by the Claimant as causing or contributing to a breach of the implied term individually, before considering whether any of the alleged conduct that is proved cumulatively breached the implied term. 1. The Claimant was suspended for 24 hours in 2013/14 due to an article about her in The Sun newspaper concerning her involvement in the TV programme "One Born Every Minute".

[86]This factual allegation is not disputed. Given that the misunderstanding was resolved the following day, however, it is doubtful that this would be capable of 15 breaching the implied term or contributing to a breach, but even if it did so the Claimant did not raise any grievance about it or take it further at the time. There is no evidence of any mention of it until her “something needs to change” email on 30 April 2022. Describing the incident at that stage, the Claimant said “It was all smoothed over and of course I took it on the chin”. There can be no doubt that by that stage, and certainly by the time of the Claimant’s resignation more than six months later, it was firmly in the past. It is notable that the Claimant makes no other allegations about the person responsible for the suspension. I find it was not capable, in 2022, of amounting to or contributing to a breach of the implied term. 2. From 2014 until 2017 the Claimant was told that she was not good enough for a Band 7 position. Her applications for a Band 7 role were rejected at interview twice.

[87]The Claimant has not given any evidence to support a finding that she was told she was not good enough for a band 7 position. The allegation is also at odds with the undisputed evidence that Ms Molloy selected the Claimant to participate in the transitional programme in 2017 and appointed her to a band 7 secondment in late 2017. The first part of this allegation therefore fails on the

facts.

[88]The only evidence of the Claimant having applied for or been interviewed for a band 7 position relates to the recruitment exercise in 2017 when Ms Hetherington was appointed. The mere fact that Ms Hetherington was appointed cannot constitute a breach of the implied term. I have anyway accepted that the panel genuinely considered Ms Hetherington to be the best candidate for the role. There is no evidence on which I could find that the decision was unfair or unreasonable, still less that it was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust. 3. The Claimant was told by a Matron, Cathy Molloy that she was messy. This was in summer 2015 in an interview for a Band 7 Co-Ordinator role .

[89]As already noted, there is no evidence before the Tribunal of a band 7 interview in 2015 and the Claimant did not allege in her own evidence, or in cross-examination of Ms Molloy, that this comment was made during an interview in 2015. It is not in dispute, however, that Ms Molloy on one occasion referred to the Claimant’s hair being messy and later apologised for doing so. That on its own could not cause or contribute to a breach of implied term. Even if the Claimant was upset by it, it comes nowhere near the threshold of being likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. As for any other comments about the Claimant’s hair made at the start of a shift or during a shift, Ms Molloy was obviously entitled to ask the Claimant to comply with the uniform policy. The Claimant accepted in her “something needs to change” email that her hair was sometimes messy. Ms Molloy had high standards and that was her prerogative as the matron. There is no basis on which I could find that she did not apply the same standards to all staff. Her approach could not reasonably have impacted on the Claimant’s confidence and trust in her employer. Furthermore, Ms Molloy retired in 2018. To the extent there was an impact, it was not still a live issue in 2022 when the Claimant resigned. 4. Sharon Jordan, a Band 6 midwife, encouraged [JK], a junior member of staff, to speak badly of the Claimant. This was in spring 2021.

[90]There was some confusion in the evidence about the date of this incident. It appears the matter came up twice, once at the time of the delivery in July 2020, when Ms Jordan witnessed JK being upset and HB reported the patient’s distress to Ms Chinnock, and later when the case was discussed at a “birth afterthoughts” meeting in or around March 2021. It is not clear whether it was on the first or second occasion that Ms Jordan asked JK whether she wanted to make a complaint, but I have accepted that that was as far as it went. I have not accepted that Ms Jordan put pressure on JK to complain or encouraged her to speak badly of the Claimant. This allegation therefore fails on the 16 facts. 5. In late 2021/early 2022 Jen Hurley complained to Sharon Jordan about the Claimant. The Claimant was not asked for her views about the matters raised.

[91]Again, the date of this allegation is not correct. It is not disputed that Jen Hurley complained to Ms Jordan on 17 March 2021. Ms Hurley was a midwife, not a manager. The complaint itself could not possibly cause or contribute to a breach of the implied term. The relevant issue is how the Respondent dealt with it. It is not disputed that this was one of the issues raised with the Claimant by Ms Jorden in their telephone conversation in March 2021. Whether or not the Claimant was specifically asked for her views, she did tell Ms Jordan she did not accept what she had been told was correct. The Claimant clearly knew what incident was being referred to, because she raised the incident in the “something needs to change” email, and there set out quite a detailed account of what happened. I will return to this when considering the Respondent’s approach to the complaints against the Claimant cumulatively. 6. The Claimant was asked to remove herself from the Band 7 staff WhatsApp group by Nicola Chinnock in October 2021 after she had requested help.

[92]This allegation is not made out on the facts. Ms Chinnock suggested the Claimant remove herself after the Claimant said it was bad for her mental health. The Claimant then willingly did so. Ms Chinnock had no control over the group, was not part of it herself, and did not require the Claimant to remove herself. 7. Concerns about the Claimant’s platform on TikTok. The Claimant alleges that the concerns raised were unfair and unjustified. This commenced in September 2022 when the Claimant set up her TikTok platform until the Claimant left her employment.

[93]There was only evidence of two occasions when the Claimant’s TikTok channel was queried, prior to her resignation. Again, the date of this allegation is clearly not correct, but the Respondent does not take any issue with that.

[94]For the avoidance of doubt, the Claimant’s evidence that she was called into Ms Chinnock’s office “week after week” regarding her TikTok channel is not supported by any other evidence and I do not accept it.

[95]The first occasion was in August 2021. Ms Hetherington was clearly entitled to take advice from the communications team about whether the channel was compliant with the social media policy. Vicki Mathias noted some possible concerns but concluded it was okay. Nothing happened following this other than Ms Hetherington reminding the Claimant of the social media policy. That was an entirely innocuous act.

[96]The second occasion was in April 2022. There is no need for me to decide whether it was reasonable for the Respondent’s managers to conclude the video was unprofessional, although the fact that so many of them had concerns strongly suggests it was a reasonable opinion. I accept it was their genuine opinion. All that happened, however, was that the Claimant was asked to take down the video. It is not part of the Claimant’s case that she was asked to close the account, but I note Ms Chinnock’s evidence was that she did ask her to do so. Importantly, however, when the Claimant refused to take any action, the matter was not taken any further. A manager who genuinely believes a video on social media is unprofessional simply asking the member of staff to remove it could not possibly amount to, or contribute to, a breach of the implied term. In the circumstances, it could not reasonably have had any impact on the employee’s confidence and trust in the employer. 8. The Respondent did not deal fairly with a complaint made about the Claimant by a Band 5 midwife. The Claimant was not told what she had done but it was suggested to 17 her that she should come off being in charge or work under Bonny Hetherington’s supervision or go on a leadership course. This took place from January 2022 until January 2023.

[97]Again, it is not entirely clear what this allegation relates to. The suggestions were made in the meeting on 4 July 2022. Prior to this meeting there had been a large number of complaints from midwives and it is not clear which complaint the Claimant means.

[98]In any event, I am content to treat this as a general allegation that the Respondent did not deal with the complaints made against the Claimant fairly. That includes the complaints made by JK and Jen Hurley. Given that I have rejected all of the other allegations of conduct that breached of the implied term for the reasons I have given, there is no need to separately consider the cumulative impact. I instead consider the overarching complaint that the Respondent did not deal with the complaints against the Claimant fairly.

[99]The Claimant has made a general allegation at various times that senior colleagues encouraged junior staff to speak badly of her. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no evidence to support that allegation and I do not accept it. The furthest it went was the one occasion when Ms Jordan asked JK if she wanted to make a complaint against the Claimant, which is not an unreasonable question in circumstances where JK had been upset after a difficult delivery and told Ms Jordan it was about the Claimant’s behaviour towards her and to the patient. Other than that, the only evidence of management involvement in complaints is that sometimes staff appear to have been asked to put their concerns in writing. Again, there is nothing unreasonable or unfair about that.

[100]The Claimant has also asserted that all of the complaints arise from occasions when she had to call out bad practice and the staff were protecting themselves by getting their story in first. Alternatively she suggests that some staff were jealous of her as a result of One Born Every Minute, or disapproved of her social media activity or her gregarious personality in general. Even if there is some truth to those suggestions, which I am not in any position to determine, it does not alter the fact that the Claimant’s managers were faced with numerous concerns and complaints against the Claimant which, on their face, painted a consistent picture of the Claimant upsetting junior staff by undermining them or not supporting them. The managers obviously could not ignore this and the Claimant does not say they should have done. The Claimant’s essential argument is that the Respondent should have investigated each scenario separately and reached a conclusion about whether the Claimant or anyone else had done anything wrong. That would have been one way of dealing with them. The Respondent’s witnesses have explained, however, that they were seeking to find a solution without commencing any formal process, not least because the staff who complained did not want to be identified. Particularly given that a theme of the complaints was the Claimant’s manner towards staff, regardless of issues of clinical judgement, I consider it was entirely reasonable for the Respondent to attempt to resolve the issues with the Claimant informally. There were obvious risks involved in adopting a formal fact-finding approach pursuant to a disciplinary or quasi-disciplinary process. It could have seriously damaged staff morale and cohesiveness in the unit.

[101]There are, of course, pros and cons of both routes. One disadvantage of the informal route is that the Claimant is not given all the details of the complaints raised against her and does not have a full opportunity to give her side of each scenario. I do appreciate that it may be frustrating and stressful to know that complaints have been made without having all the details, but the Respondent did not proceed on the basis that the complaints were undoubtedly true or make any finding that the Claimant had acted wrongly on any specific occasion. The aim of management was to find a way of stopping the complaints without needing to make any formal findings. 18

[102]I pause here to observe that the Respondent’s approach is not consistent with the Claimant’s case that the Respondent wanted to force her out. The Respondent had sufficient evidence to commence disciplinary or performance management proceedings and one would expect them to have opted for one of those routes if they had wanted the Claimant out of the unit.

[103]It should also be noted that the Respondent’s attempts to resolve matters informally were not helped by the Claimant’s defensive attitude. Even if the Claimant is right that her clinical judgement was, in most if not all of the scenarios raised, correct, she could have been much more reflective about the fact that some junior staff were reporting they were upset by her behaviour and did not feel able to approach her. As Mr Wyeth for the Respondent has pointed out, even now the Claimant does not appear to acknowledge that her approach, as separate from her clinical decision-making, might have been at fault.

[104]Considering what action the Respondent actually took, there is nothing that could be said to have been calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage confidence and trust. Alternatively, the Respondent had reasonable and proper cause for acting as it did.

[105]Ms Jordan attempted to discuss some complaints with the Claimant in early 2021. This did not go well. Ms Jordan informed senior management, but nothing further happened at that stage. Following more complaints in early 2022, the matter was picked up again by Ms Chinnock in April 2022. The Claimant then sent her “something needs to change” email, which itself raised the issue of the complaints against her. The meetings thereafter were about that email, but also inevitably Ms Chinnock and Ms Northrup were seeking to deal with the more recent complaints about the Claimant at the same time. It would perhaps have been fairer to the Claimant to make it clear that the meeting on 4 July, in particular, was being called at least in part to discuss further concerns raised about her, so she did not feel ambushed in the meeting, but I do not find there was any malice on the part of Ms Chinnock or Ms Northrup. I note that during cross-examination, Ms Northrup apologised to the Claimant if it was not clear that further concerns may be discussed at the meeting.

[106]The Claimant alleged at various times during the hearing that the Respondent sought to “down-band” her. That is clearly not correct. Three suggestions were made in the meeting of 4 July: For the Claimant not to be in charge for 8 weeks, for her to shadow Ms Hetherington, and for her to undergo leadership training. The Claimant did not agree to the first two suggestions and the Respondent did not take any further action other than seeking to schedule another meeting and ask the Claimant for her suggestions. It is very unfortunate that the meeting was so delayed as a result of Ms Chinnock’s ill health, but that was no-one’s fault and the Claimant was aware of the reasons for the delay. The Claimant then resigned before the rescheduled meeting took place. I fully accept that it would have been uncomfortable for the Claimant to feel that the concerns were still hanging over her, but the difficulties in resolving it were, as I have said, partly because of the Claimant’s defensive attitude.

[107]It is not at all clear that the Claimant’s confidence and trust in the Respondent was in fact destroyed or seriously damaged prior to her resignation. She responded to Ms Northrup on 15 July saying her email was “warm and positive”. Even after she resigned, she worked her notice (apart from a few weeks of sickness absence) and she continued to work on the unit as a bank midwife after the end of her employment. Despite alleging bullying in the sabbatical request, and in the exit interview, the Claimant was never able to name anyone she thought was bullying her. Having said that, I do accept that the Claimant felt genuinely and deeply aggrieved by the fact that people had been complaining about her and she felt unable to defend herself. Even if the Claimant subjectively felt that confidence and trust had been destroyed, however, that was not reasonable in the circumstances, for the reasons I have given. 19

[108]The complaint of unfair dismissal therefore fails on the basis there was no breach of the implied term.

[109]There is no need to consider whether the Claimant resigned because of the alleged breach. I do, however, accept that a significant reason for the Claimant’s decision to resign was her unhappiness at feeling she was being unfairly criticised. She was a passionate midwife and I do not consider she would have chosen to move into a sales role, or indeed to commute to London to work in another Trust which is what she eventually did, if she had not been unhappy for that reason.

[110]There is also no need to consider affirmation of the contract.

[111]Finally, for completeness, I would not have found that the Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code in respect of the Claimant’s grievance. The Claimant accepted the proposed resolution. Arguably the Respondent should have sent the letter as indicated in Ms Marvelley’s email, but the Claimant never requested it and it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to consider the matter was closed following the Cl’s acceptance. In any event, there is no requirement of the Code that would be relevant to the failure to send the letter. There would not, therefore, have been any basis for an uplift. Approved by: