Mrs A L Boyce v London Borough of Islington: 2213043/2023 and 2213553/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2213043/2023, 2213553/2023

Between

Mrs A L BoyceClaimant

London Borough of IslingtonRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Henderson

Ms E Mitchell (instructed by Counsel) for claimant

Ms L Mensah (instructed by Counsel) for respondent

Date 25 June 2024

JUDGMENT

[2]The claim for constructive unfair dismissal is not successful.

REASONS

Conclusions

[1]This is a constructive dismissal case. The cl aimant was employed by the respondent as a Qualified Early Years Education Worker from 1 July 2019 until 9 April 2023. The claimant resigned on 10 March 2023 claiming constructive dismissal . Her resignation letter had said this was “with immediate effect” but , in fact, the claimant intended to give four weeks’ notice, which was paid in full by the respondent.

[2]Early conciliation started on 4 June 2023 and end ed on 16 July 2023. The claim form in respect of case number 2213043/2023 was presented on 30 July 2023 and the claim form in respect of case number 2213553/2023 was presented on 13 August 2023. There was a Case Management Preliminary Hearing on 11 Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 2 of 18 January January 2024 before EJ Tegerdine. The two claims were consolidated. The 2024 before EJ Tegerdine. The two claims were consolidated. The claimant had withdrawn her claim fclaimant had withdrawn her claim for disability discrimination, which was or disability discrimination, which was dismissed.dismissed.

[3]The Final Hearing was originally listed for 3 daysThe Final Hearing was originally listed for 3 days (12(12--14 June 2024)14 June 2024), but due to , but due to judicial illnessjudicial illness, it , it hadhad to be heard in 2 days. The first scheduled day was used to to be heard in 2 days. The first scheduled day was used to discuss and agree an amendment to the Ldiscuss and agree an amendment to the List of Issues, which was discussed ist of Issues, which was discussed with EJ Brown on 12 June 2024. Details are set out below.with EJ Brown on 12 June 2024. Details are set out below. List of Issues List of Issues –– Set out at Appendix 1 Set out at Appendix 1

[4]The parties had discussed and agreed a List of Issues at the case management The parties had discussed and agreed a List of Issues at the case management hearing but on 10 June 2024 the claimant indihearing but on 10 June 2024 the claimant indicated that she wished to make an cated that she wished to make an amendment to add the stress risk questionnaire dated 5 January 2023 as a amendment to add the stress risk questionnaire dated 5 January 2023 as a complaint which the respondecomplaint which the respondent should have treated as a grievance. nt should have treated as a grievance.

[5]The respondent agreed to this amendment (in the interests of a speedy The respondent agreed to this amendment (in the interests of a speedy resolution resolution of the case) but indicated its stance on this amendment and reserved of the case) but indicated its stance on this amendment and reserved the right to ask supplemental questions of its own witnesses.the right to ask supplemental questions of its own witnesses.

[6]ThThe List of Issues at Appendix 1 was agreed by the parties at the e List of Issues at Appendix 1 was agreed by the parties at the commencement of the hearing.commencement of the hearing. Relevant Law

Relevant Law

[7]The parties agrThe parties agreed on the relevant provisioneed on the relevant provisionss of the applicable law. The of the applicable law. The key key issue related to the application of those legal principles to the relevanissue related to the application of those legal principles to the relevant facts of t facts of this case. The applicable statutory provision is section 95 (1) c of the this case. The applicable statutory provision is section 95 (1) c of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).

[8]AnAn employee seeking to rely on constructive dismissal must show that the employee seeking to rely on constructive dismissal must show that the employer was guilty of a repudiatory breach of contract, not simply of employer was guilty of a repudiatory breach of contract, not simply of unreasonable conduct: unreasonable conduct: Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] QB Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp

[1978] QB 761

[1978] ICR 221

, CA.761,

[1978] ICR 221

, CA.

[9]The claimant relThe claimant relieiedd on the implied term of trust and confidence as in on the implied term of trust and confidence as in Malik v Malik v BCCI

[1998] AC 20

.BCCI

[1998] AC 20

. Ms Mitchell accepted that mere unreasonableness oMs Mitchell accepted that mere unreasonableness onn the the part of the respondent is not enough. The claimant must show that the part of the respondent is not enough. The claimant must show that the respondent behaved in a way which was calculated orespondent behaved in a way which was calculated or lr likely to destroy or ikely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between employer and employee.seriously damage the trust and confidence between employer and employee.

[10]The claimant relied on the last straw doctrine, which Ms Mitchell eventually The claimant relied on the last straw doctrine, which Ms Mitchell eventually confirmed as being the events on 8 and 9 March 2023.confirmed as being the events on 8 and 9 March 2023. Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 3 of 18 Conduct of the Hearing Conduct of the Hearing

[11]The hThe heearing was conducted remotely on CVP. There were connection problems aring was conducted remotely on CVP. There were connection problems on each day with various partieson each day with various parties,, which did result in a loss of time which did result in a loss of time –– but the but the hearing was concluded within the 2 days, with a reserved judgment.hearing was concluded within the 2 days, with a reserved judgment. I checked I checked with the claimant and the otherwith the claimant and the other witnesses if they needed any reasonable witnesses if they needed any reasonable adjustments. Nothing was required, except for regular breaksadjustments. Nothing was required, except for regular breaks,, which were which were taken.taken.

[12]The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and on her behalf from Ms Marie The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and on her behalf from Ms Marie McCormack (Branch Secretary of the Islington Apex McCormack (Branch Secretary of the Islington Apex Branch Branch of GMB)of GMB) ((MMMM)). The . The respondent’s witnesses were Ms Ann Curran (respondent’s witnesses were Ms Ann Curran (AC)AC) Head of Nursery at the New Head of Nursery at the New River Green Children’s Centre (River Green Children’s Centre (NRGNRG) and Ms Ana Sevilla () and Ms Ana Sevilla (ASAS) Executive Head ) Executive Head of Nursery at NRG.of Nursery at NRG. The witnesses adopted their written statements as their The witnesses adopted their written statements as their evidencevidence in che in chief and were cross examined and answered questions from the ief and were cross examined and answered questions from the Judge.Judge.

[13]The Tribunal was presented with an Agreed Bundle of 555 pages (page The Tribunal was presented with an Agreed Bundle of 555 pages (page references are to that bundlereferences are to that bundle)). The Tribunal was assisted by written . The Tribunal was assisted by written submissions from the respondent and by a wrsubmissions from the respondent and by a written chitten chronology of allegations and ronology of allegations and a note of the relevant law from the claimant. a note of the relevant law from the claimant. Findings of Fact

Findings of Fact

[14]The Tribunal will only make such findings of fact are relevant to determine the The Tribunal will only make such findings of fact are relevant to determine the Issues in this case.Issues in this case. General General Background Background

[15]The claimant joined NRG in July 2019. ShThe claimant joined NRG in July 2019. She had worked with AC (as peers) for e had worked with AC (as peers) for 10 years at a primary school in Kentish Town. They had been friends and 10 years at a primary school in Kentish Town. They had been friends and socialised together, going to theatre and cinema trips. AC had left to work at socialised together, going to theatre and cinema trips. AC had left to work at NRG and encouraged the claimaNRG and encouraged the claimant to apply for a job there.nt to apply for a job there.

[16]AC acknowAC acknowledged the friendship and denied that she had been unduly harsh on ledged the friendship and denied that she had been unduly harsh on the claimantthe claimant as her manager at NRGas her manager at NRG so as not to be accused of favouritism. so as not to be accused of favouritism. She said that as a manager she often had to make decisions which were She said that as a manager she often had to make decisions which were unpounpopular with staff.pular with staff.

[17]The claimant confirmThe claimant confirmed in cross examination that she was aware of and had ed in cross examination that she was aware of and had read the respondent’s policies on how to book annual leave read the respondent’s policies on how to book annual leave entitlement; onentitlement; on how how obtain obtain SSpecial pecial LLeave eave over and above annual leave over and above annual leave including the right to appeal including the right to appeal a decision under this policya decision under this policy (Policy at page(Policy at pages 142s 142--165) 165) and oand of the f the Sickness Sickness Absence (Policy at pages 179Absence (Policy at pages 179--212).212).

[18]The claimant accepted that she had never seen or made an application under The claimant accepted that she had never seen or made an application under the respondent’s Flexithe respondent’s Flexi--time scheme (additional documents provided ontime scheme (additional documents provided on 13 13 Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 4 of 18 June). She appeared to have misunderstoo June). She appeared to have misunderstood the reference to flexibility in the d the reference to flexibility in the Special Leave scheme.Special Leave scheme.

[19]The claimant said she had not read the Grievance Policy (Policy at pages 166The claimant said she had not read the Grievance Policy (Policy at pages 166--178) 178) in detail, in detail, but acknowledged she had access to it and was aware of thebut acknowledged she had access to it and was aware of the informal grievance process and believed sheinformal grievance process and believed she had followed it. had followed it. It was accepted in It was accepted in evidence (including that of MM) that this policy was formerly known as the evidence (including that of MM) that this policy was formerly known as the Workplace Resolution Policy. ThWorkplace Resolution Policy. Thee claimant accepted that sclaimant accepted that she had not followed he had not followed the formal grievance prthe formal grievance process until after she left employment. ocess until after she left employment.

[20]TheThe claimant said AC was her Line Manager. AC said that she was the claimant said AC was her Line Manager. AC said that she was the claimant’s indirect Line Manager and the claimant’s day to day Line Managers claimant’s indirect Line Manager and the claimant’s day to day Line Managers were the Room Leaders who would assign tasks as required on the day. were the Room Leaders who would assign tasks as required on the day. AAC C would discuss the allocation of work with would discuss the allocation of work with the Room Leaders, but they dealt with the Room Leaders, but they dealt with the daily operation of the classrooms etc.the daily operation of the classrooms etc.

[21]AC accepted that she made the decisions about granting annual leave and AC accepted that she made the decisions about granting annual leave and made the recommendations about granting special leave evenmade the recommendations about granting special leave even though she did though she did not make the actual decisionnot make the actual decision. . However, sHowever, she he said that she said that she would expect her would expect her recommendations to be followed.recommendations to be followed.

[22]AC said that she recognised the claimant’s close relationship with her aunt (who AC said that she recognised the claimant’s close relationship with her aunt (who had brought her up) but that she had been following the definitions in thehad brought her up) but that she had been following the definitions in the Special Leave policy Special Leave policy and an aunt was “extended family” not “immediate family”. and an aunt was “extended family” not “immediate family”.

[23]The claimant’s overarching complaint was that she was bullied and harassed by The claimant’s overarching complaint was that she was bullied and harassed by AC and was treated differently from other staff. This was denied by AC. AC and was treated differently from other staff. This was denied by AC. Whilst I Whilst I accept that there wasaccept that there was a deteriorationa deterioration in the original friendship between the in the original friendship between the claimant andclaimant and AC and there was some tension in their working relationship, I find AC and there was some tension in their working relationship, I find that the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof to show that she was that the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof to show that she was bullied or harassed by AC.bullied or harassed by AC.

[24]I asked the claimant how she I asked the claimant how she felt she was treated differently. She said that felt she was treated differently. She said that sheshe was was given tasks which were not givegiven tasks which were not givenn to others and was giveto others and was givenn more work than more work than others. She said others were treated more favourably as regards holiday others. She said others were treated more favourably as regards holiday requests. requests. The claimant said that she had not (and did noThe claimant said that she had not (and did not intend to) give any t intend to) give any specific names of those who wspecific names of those who were treated betterere treated better/differently/differently. The claimant said . The claimant said she did not want to involve others in her claims. The claimant accepted she did not want to involve others in her claims. The claimant accepted that that therethere was no evidence before the Tribunal (other than her oral evidence) of was no evidence before the Tribunal (other than her oral evidence) of didifferential treatment. fferential treatment. She also felt tShe also felt that she had been singled out after her hat she had been singled out after her accident at work in November 2021.accident at work in November 2021.

[25]Following this accident, the claimant had linked sickness absenceFollowing this accident, the claimant had linked sickness absencess and also and also absences due to Covid. The claimant was managed under the Sickness absences due to Covid. The claimant was managed under the Sickness AAbsence Policy bsence Policy and raised an appeal under that and raised an appeal under that Policy butPolicy but has not raised any has not raised any Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 5 of 18 allegations/complaints with regard to that policy in her claim for constructive allegations/complaints with regard to that policy in her claim for constructive dismissal (see Agreed List of Issues)dismissal (see Agreed List of Issues)..

[26]On the On the questionquestion of of the claimant being treated dithe claimant being treated differently byfferently by AACC, , I note that the I note that the claimant also said in cross examination that many members of staff were claimant also said in cross examination that many members of staff were unhappy with AC’s management of NRG unhappy with AC’s management of NRG and had told her they were leaving and had told her they were leaving because of this. This could be seen as inconsistent with the claimant’s evidence because of this. This could be seen as inconsistent with the claimant’s evidence that othersthat others were given more favourable treatment and she was singled out for were given more favourable treatment and she was singled out for poor treatment.poor treatment.

[27]AS was AC’s direct Line Manager but was alsoAS was AC’s direct Line Manager but was also responsible for other sites. She responsible for other sites. She attended at NRG for 3 days a week and shared an office with AC when she was attended at NRG for 3 days a week and shared an office with AC when she was there. She had an othere. She had an opportunity to observe the relationship between AC and the pportunity to observe the relationship between AC and the claimant and was aware that there were some issues and tensions betweclaimant and was aware that there were some issues and tensions between en them.them.

[28]AS said that she had discussed the relationship with both AC and the claimant AS said that she had discussed the relationship with both AC and the claimant but had not regarded this as a problem but had not regarded this as a problem which had given rise to which had given rise to a a grievance. grievance. She regarded the matters raised by the claimant as regular She regarded the matters raised by the claimant as regular ““gripesgripes”” which may which may come up in the dacome up in the dayy--toto--day management of NRG and nothing more.day management of NRG and nothing more. Annual Leave Annual Leave RequestsRequests

[29]Dealing below with each of the matters raised by the claDealing below with each of the matters raised by the claimant in the List of imant in the List of Issues.Issues. AC accepted that the claimant valued her time off work and booked her AC accepted that the claimant valued her time off work and booked her holidays regularly and in advance.holidays regularly and in advance. She said she was happy to accommodate She said she was happy to accommodate leave requests from all staff but had to manage levels of staff attendance, so leave requests from all staff but had to manage levels of staff attendance, so not anot all requests could be granted.ll requests could be granted. That meant members of staff were That meant members of staff were sosometimes metimes unhappy unhappy with her dewith her decisionscisions, but this did not mean that the claiman, but this did not mean that the claimant t was was specifically targetspecifically targeted by her.ed by her.

[30]The claimant alleges that on The claimant alleges that on 7 April 2021 AC refused the claimant annual leave 7 April 2021 AC refused the claimant annual leave ffor her birthday celebror her birthday celebration on 15ation on 15--16 April16 April. . AC explained that the claimant was AC explained that the claimant was allowed that leave on 8 April. allowed that leave on 8 April. However,However, as this was the school holidays and as this was the school holidays and none of the termnone of the term--time staff were working, she was short statime staff were working, she was short staffed and had made ffed and had made the claimant aware that the claimant aware that the the claimant claimant maymay have to be recalled at short notice if have to be recalled at short notice if there were any unexpected sickness absencethere were any unexpected sickness absences (page 512).s (page 512).

[31]I find that this is not a breach of the implied term of trust and confidenceI find that this is not a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. I . I accept AC’s evidence that accept AC’s evidence that she had to flag this possibility to tshe had to flag this possibility to the claimanthe claimant, no , no matter how unlikely it was that the claimant would be recalled to work. matter how unlikely it was that the claimant would be recalled to work. In any In any event, the claimant’s leave was granted, and she was not recalled to work.event, the claimant’s leave was granted, and she was not recalled to work.

[32]The claimant alleges thatThe claimant alleges that she requested inshe requested in July July 2021 2021 half a day’s annual leave half a day’s annual leave on 13on 13 August when she was leaving for holiday. This was refused by AC August when she was leaving for holiday. This was refused by AC and and the claimant the claimant said she said she was was made to take her suitcases into work. The claimant made to take her suitcases into work. The claimant Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 6 of 18 said that she felt humiliated by said that she felt humiliated by havinghaving to do this and other members of sto do this and other members of staff taff asked her questions about this.asked her questions about this.

[33]The claimant was due to work a morning shift ending at 12pm. She had booked The claimant was due to work a morning shift ending at 12pm. She had booked her flight at 4pm (she could not recall from which London Airport). Bearing in her flight at 4pm (she could not recall from which London Airport). Bearing in mind that most flights require attending the airport at mind that most flights require attending the airport at least 2/2,5 hours prior to least 2/2,5 hours prior to departure, and gideparture, and given the length of travel to any of the London Airports, this ven the length of travel to any of the London Airports, this would appear to have left little time for the claimant to leave work, return homewould appear to have left little time for the claimant to leave work, return home, , collect her luggage and then go to the airportcollect her luggage and then go to the airport . .

[34]The claimant wouldThe claimant would have been aware of this when she originallyhave been aware of this when she originally booked her booked her flight, and the annual leave for the holiday itself. The claimant could have flight, and the annual leave for the holiday itself. The claimant could have booked a later flight or booked the booked a later flight or booked the morning morning off work, given that she planned her off work, given that she planned her holidays well in advance.holidays well in advance.

[35]I do not I do not accepaccept the claimant’s t the claimant’s evidence thatevidence that sheshe wwas as humilhumiliated by having to iated by having to take her luggage into work. take her luggage into work. This may be inconvenient but there would be no This may be inconvenient but there would be no stigma or embarrassment attached to such conduct. AC said that staff often stigma or embarrassment attached to such conduct. AC said that staff often took their luggage to work and left from ttook their luggage to work and left from there to go on holiday. here to go on holiday. There is no There is no breach of breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence.the implied duty of trust and confidence.

[36]The claimant says that AC “initially” refused her The claimant says that AC “initially” refused her request on 23 July 2021 for request on 23 July 2021 for leave to attend the funeral of a child she used to care for at her previous leave to attend the funeral of a child she used to care for at her previous school school because this was during the summer break. The claimabecause this was during the summer break. The claimant challenged this citing nt challenged this citing another member of staff who was taking annual leave on 28 July which AC had another member of staff who was taking annual leave on 28 July which AC had authorised. authorised. In any event the leave was authorised. In any event the leave was authorised. I do not find that this is a I do not find that this is a breach of the ibreach of the implied duty of trust and confidence.mplied duty of trust and confidence.

[37]In July 2021 the claiIn July 2021 the claimant says she was refused leave to collect her daughter mant says she was refused leave to collect her daughter from hospital as her daughter is an adult. In from hospital as her daughter is an adult. In fact,fact, the surgery was the surgery was cancelled,cancelled, and the leave was not required as the surgery was cancelled. and the leave was not required as the surgery was cancelled. TThis is not a his is not a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidbreach of the implied duty of trust and confidence.ence. Special Leave Requests Special Leave Requests

[38]These relate to the claimant’s requests to assist her elderly aunt on various These relate to the claimant’s requests to assist her elderly aunt on various occasions. As mentioned above, it was accepted that the claimant had a close occasions. As mentioned above, it was accepted that the claimant had a close relationship relationship with her aunt. However, the respondent applied the terms owith her aunt. However, the respondent applied the terms of the f the Special Leave Policy strictly and regarded the claimant’s aunt as extended and Special Leave Policy strictly and regarded the claimant’s aunt as extended and not immediate family.not immediate family.

[39]The policy states that employees are expected to use their annual leave The policy states that employees are expected to use their annual leave wherever possiblewherever possible. Special leave provisions should be used in exceptional . Special leave provisions should be used in exceptional ccircumstances. A commonircumstances. A common--sense approach which is fair and reasonable should sense approach which is fair and reasonable should be applied by management. Special Leave is be applied by management. Special Leave is discretionary,discretionary, and entitlement is and entitlement is based on an individual’s situation. based on an individual’s situation. There is a section to deal with carers or There is a section to deal with carers or Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 7 of 18 those with dependants. A de those with dependants. A dependant is defined under the Policy in the same pendant is defined under the Policy in the same way as immediate way as immediate family,family, ie not including aunts.ie not including aunts.

[40]AC said that the claimant’s requests for Special Leave were in fact granted: AC said that the claimant’s requests for Special Leave were in fact granted: ((page 232/3page 232/3)) relating to the delivery of medical equipment at the claimant’s relating to the delivery of medical equipment at the claimant’s auntaunt’s home in November 2021 and ’s home in November 2021 and ((pages 257pages 257--258258)) relating to care for her relating to care for her aunt following an operation in September 2022.aunt following an operation in September 2022.

[41]I accept that the respondent’s representatives took a strict interprI accept that the respondent’s representatives took a strict interpretation of the etation of the Special Leave policy as regards the definition of immedSpecial Leave policy as regards the definition of immediate family excluding the iate family excluding the claimant’s aunt. The policy is discretionary and so the respondent could have claimant’s aunt. The policy is discretionary and so the respondent could have taken a more lenient approach, but taken a more lenient approach, but I do not find that their failure to do so is soI do not find that their failure to do so is so unreasonable and/or perverse as to constitute a breach of the impliedunreasonable and/or perverse as to constitute a breach of the implied duty of duty of trust and confidence.trust and confidence.

[42]The claimant has not made out her case on The claimant has not made out her case on refusal of Special Leave.refusal of Special Leave. Supervision meeting on 26 October 2021 with AS (pages 234 Supervision meeting on 26 October 2021 with AS (pages 234--237)237)

[43]The claimant says that she made allegations of bullying and harassment by AC The claimant says that she made allegations of bullying and harassment by AC which were not which were not dealt with by AS and which were not treated as an informal dealt with by AS and which were not treated as an informal grievance. The relevant section refers to the claimant saying that AC is much grievance. The relevant section refers to the claimant saying that AC is much harder on her than other stharder on her than other staff. There was a discussion as to why this might be aff. There was a discussion as to why this might be the case given their earlier working relthe case given their earlier working relationship and friendship. ationship and friendship. There is no There is no specific mention of “bullying or harassment”. specific mention of “bullying or harassment”.

[44]The claimant does not say in her witness statement that she specifically raised The claimant does not say in her witness statement that she specifically raised allegations of bullying. In fact, the claimant’s witness statement (paragraph 23) allegations of bullying. In fact, the claimant’s witness statement (paragraph 23) reflectsreflects the wording in the Supervision meeting record. The claimant did not the wording in the Supervision meeting record. The claimant did not make a point in hmake a point in her witness statement of the fact er witness statement of the fact that the supervision record that the supervision record was unsigned, though she did raise it in her oral evidence. was unsigned, though she did raise it in her oral evidence.

[45]AS said she discussed with the claimant how perAS said she discussed with the claimant how personal and professional sonal and professional relationships can become blurred and whether the claimant’s frrelationships can become blurred and whether the claimant’s friendship with AC iendship with AC made it harder for her to accept AC’s role as her manager. AS said the claimant made it harder for her to accept AC’s role as her manager. AS said the claimant did not accept this was the case.did not accept this was the case.

[46]AS was very clear in her oral evidenceAS was very clear in her oral evidence that she did not regard the content of her that she did not regard the content of her discussions with the claimant at the Supervision meeting in October 2021 as an discussions with the claimant at the Supervision meeting in October 2021 as an informal grievance. informal grievance. TThe claimant he claimant had had said she enjoyed work and was unable to said she enjoyed work and was unable to give any specific give any specific examples how AC was harder on her thanexamples how AC was harder on her than others. AS had others. AS had discussed the claimant’s comments with AC in her own Supervision 1discussed the claimant’s comments with AC in her own Supervision 1--22--1 1 meeting. AS had not kept any notes of thmeeting. AS had not kept any notes of thatat discussion and had not gone back to discussion and had not gone back to the claimant with any comments.the claimant with any comments. Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 8 of 18

[47]I note that the InI note that the Informal Stage of the Grievance Procedurformal Stage of the Grievance Procedure states that where the e states that where the issues cannot be resolved by direct contact with the other member of staff (as in issues cannot be resolved by direct contact with the other member of staff (as in this case) the employee should “set out the nature and facts or evidence to this case) the employee should “set out the nature and facts or evidence to support the grievancesupport the grievance”. There is no ”. There is no evidence to show that this is what theevidence to show that this is what the claimant did at the Supervision meeting (even taking the claimant’s evidence at claimant did at the Supervision meeting (even taking the claimant’s evidence at its highest)its highest)

[48]I accept AS’ evidence that she did not regard her discussion with the claimant in I accept AS’ evidence that she did not regard her discussion with the claimant in October 2021 as an informal grievanceOctober 2021 as an informal grievance undunder the Policyer the Policy because the claimant because the claimant gavgave no examples or details of what she was alleging as her less favourable e no examples or details of what she was alleging as her less favourable treatment by AC.treatment by AC. I find that this is not a breach of the implied duty of trust and I find that this is not a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence.confidence. Email 6 December 2022 Email 6 December 2022 (pages 265(pages 265--267267\\))

[49]On 6 December the claimant sent an email to AC aOn 6 December the claimant sent an email to AC and AS attaching: a) a Fit nd AS attaching: a) a Fit Note for 1 month’s absence due to “Acute Stress Reaction” and b) a letter Note for 1 month’s absence due to “Acute Stress Reaction” and b) a letter whichwhich expressexpresseded concerns about being “bullied and harassed” in her workplace, concerns about being “bullied and harassed” in her workplace, which was affecting her healwhich was affecting her health and wellbeing.th and wellbeing. The claimant confirmed in her The claimant confirmed in her evevidence that she went on sickness absence from 1 December 2022 and never idence that she went on sickness absence from 1 December 2022 and never returned to work.returned to work.

[50]The claimant cited an incident on 30 November 2022. The claimant was The claimant cited an incident on 30 November 2022. The claimant was approached by J (SEN Lead) to say that she couapproached by J (SEN Lead) to say that she could take photos of her key ld take photos of her key children but not write uchildren but not write up reports during contact time. This must be done in the p reports during contact time. This must be done in the allocated 1.5 hours nonallocated 1.5 hours non--contact time per week.contact time per week. The claimant felt this was The claimant felt this was unacceptable as she had been assigned to reception duties during her nonunacceptable as she had been assigned to reception duties during her non--concontact time, which would not leave her tact time, which would not leave her adequate adequate writwriting up time. The claimant ing up time. The claimant also noted that other members of staff were using their also noted that other members of staff were using their iPadiPad. She discussed this . She discussed this with E (Teacher) who confirmed that this was allowed if staff were less busy. with E (Teacher) who confirmed that this was allowed if staff were less busy. The claimant regardeThe claimant regarded this as unfair treatment.d this as unfair treatment.

[51]The claimant raised otThe claimant raised other concerns her concerns in the letter in the letter about children’s medication about children’s medication information and a Food Safety at Work course. information and a Food Safety at Work course.

[52]The claimant’s letter is addressed to AC and The claimant’s letter is addressed to AC and AS,AS, but the content does not refer but the content does not refer to being bullied and harassed by Ato being bullied and harassed by AC. In her oral evidence the claimant saC. In her oral evidence the claimant said that id that AC was in charge overall and that J and E had told herAC was in charge overall and that J and E had told her (the cl(the claimant)aimant) that the that the instructions they were conveying had come from AC herself. This is why the instructions they were conveying had come from AC herself. This is why the claimant alleged micromanagement by AC as one claimant alleged micromanagement by AC as one of of the Issues raised in the Issues raised in this this case. However, the case. However, the claimant’s witness statement (paragraph 51) makes no claimant’s witness statement (paragraph 51) makes no reference to being told by J and E that AC had instructed them to take the reference to being told by J and E that AC had instructed them to take the actions they did. actions they did.

[53]AC said that there would have been Senior Leadership Team discussions about AC said that there would have been Senior Leadership Team discussions about the usethe use of nonof non--contact time and contact time and use of use of iPadiPad etc etc so in that sense she would so in that sense she would have given instructions to J and E, have given instructions to J and E, but that she had not given any specific but that she had not given any specific Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 9 of 18 instruction in relation to the claimant. instruction in relation to the claimant. AC said she could not comment on the AC said she could not comment on the fact that other members of staff were not reprimanded as shfact that other members of staff were not reprimanded as she was not in the e was not in the relevant places at all times. relevant places at all times.

[54]AS confirmed that she had seeAS confirmed that she had seenn the letter of 6 December. She accepted that the letter of 6 December. She accepted that the claimant had raised specific conthe claimant had raised specific concerns but AS said she regarded these as cerns but AS said she regarded these as the usual points which staff were unhappy with regardingthe usual points which staff were unhappy with regarding managers’ decisions. managers’ decisions. She was adamant that she did not regard this letter as a grievance. She had not She was adamant that she did not regard this letter as a grievance. She had not commenced an investigation as there was nothing which she commenced an investigation as there was nothing which she felt needed felt needed investigating. investigating.

[55]I do not accept AS’ view I do not accept AS’ view as being correct. In this instance, as being correct. In this instance, there there was sufficient was sufficient detail given by the claimant about her complaints to constitute an informal detail given by the claimant about her complaints to constitute an informal grievancegrievance, even if this did not specify that it was raised , even if this did not specify that it was raised against AC.against AC. Stress Risk Questionnaire Stress Risk Questionnaire --5 January 20235 January 2023 (pages 296(pages 296--305)305)

[56]This is a form completed by the claThis is a form completed by the claimant during her ongoing sickness absence imant during her ongoing sickness absence due to stress.due to stress. The form states that it is to be used by both employees and The form states that it is to be used by both employees and managers to identify workmanagers to identify work--related causes of stress and to find appropriate and related causes of stress and to find appropriate and agreed actions to alleviate this.agreed actions to alleviate this.

[57]The claimant identified bThe claimant identified being micromanaged by SM (presumably senior eing micromanaged by SM (presumably senior management) wmanagement) with conflicting instructions from line management. The claimant ith conflicting instructions from line management. The claimant complained she was not allowed to leave the room to go to the toilet complained she was not allowed to leave the room to go to the toilet –– whereas whereas other staff were allowed to do so. No specific members ofother staff were allowed to do so. No specific members of staff were identified. staff were identified.

[58]The claimant felt she was beiThe claimant felt she was being deliberately prevented from carrying out her ng deliberately prevented from carrying out her role. No specific instances were mentioned. The claimant felt she was not role. No specific instances were mentioned. The claimant felt she was not allowed to use her own initiative. The claimant referred to the fact that she fallowed to use her own initiative. The claimant referred to the fact that she felt elt her line manager was making it difficult for her toher line manager was making it difficult for her to take annual leave take annual leave –– and was and was treating others more favourably. Again, no specific treating others more favourably. Again, no specific names werenames were raised, however raised, however the claimant reiterated the allegations raised in the List of Issues relating to the claimant reiterated the allegations raised in the List of Issues relating to taking annuataking annual leave (see above).l leave (see above).

[59]The claimant felt her line manageThe claimant felt her line manager was watching her (through the window when r was watching her (through the window when she was outside with the children) and would not speak to her when she was in she was outside with the children) and would not speak to her when she was in the office.the office.

[60]AS accepted that she did not regard the content of the QuestionnaiAS accepted that she did not regard the content of the Questionnaire as being re as being an informal grievance by the claimant. AS an informal grievance by the claimant. AS said the purpose of the form was to said the purpose of the form was to address stress related issues to allow an employee to return to work. AS had address stress related issues to allow an employee to return to work. AS had put the completed questionnaire on the claimant’s file and was awaiting an put the completed questionnaire on the claimant’s file and was awaiting an indication thaindication that she was ready to return to t she was ready to return to work whenwork when the content wothe content would be uld be discussed with her in detail. At that point AS and AC would carry out a risk discussed with her in detail. At that point AS and AC would carry out a risk assessment to enable the claimant to return to work.assessment to enable the claimant to return to work. Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 10 of 18

[61]Once again AS was adamant that the content of the claimant’s streOnce again AS was adamant that the content of the claimant’s stress risk ss risk questionnaire could not be regarded as a griequestionnaire could not be regarded as a grievance as this was not the purpose vance as this was not the purpose of the process. I find that AS’ interpretation of what could constitute an informal of the process. I find that AS’ interpretation of what could constitute an informal grievance is narrowgrievance is narrow. AS accepted that the claimant had been more specific . AS accepted that the claimant had been more specific about her cabout her complaints in the Questionnaire omplaints in the Questionnaire –– yet because the compyet because the complaints had laints had been contained in the format and context of a stress risk questionnaire, AS been contained in the format and context of a stress risk questionnaire, AS would not treat them as a grievance. would not treat them as a grievance.

[62]I find that there waI find that there was sufficient information in the content of the form s sufficient information in the content of the form for Afor AS to S to consider that it may be a grievance (and consider that it may be a grievance (and at the very least discuss this with HR).at the very least discuss this with HR). Occupational Health Report 2 February 2023 Occupational Health Report 2 February 2023 (pages 330(pages 330--332) 332)

[63]This report was sent to AC. The report concluded that the claimant was unlikely This report was sent to AC. The report concluded that the claimant was unlikely to return to work until she to return to work until she felt safe to do so, which she did not do at that time. felt safe to do so, which she did not do at that time. The report recommended the completion of the stress risk assessment possibly The report recommended the completion of the stress risk assessment possibly by someone otherby someone other than AC, which would enable full discussion of the claimant’s than AC, which would enable full discussion of the claimant’s perceived triggers.perceived triggers.

[64]The report could not assThe report could not assess which adjustments may be ess which adjustments may be neededneeded to enable the to enable the claimant’s return as this would be dependent on the completion of the stress claimant’s return as this would be dependent on the completion of the stress risk assessment. Resorisk assessment. Resolution of the workplace and interpersonal issues would lution of the workplace and interpersonal issues would assist with the claimant’s symptoms, which once they assist with the claimant’s symptoms, which once they improved should enable improved should enable the claimant to return to effective service. The report concluded that no further the claimant to return to effective service. The report concluded that no further OH Report was necessary.OH Report was necessary.

[65]AS said she AS said she had seen the OH Report but again did not regard it as a grievance. had seen the OH Report but again did not regard it as a grievance. She could not discuss it in detail with the clShe could not discuss it in detail with the claimant because she was off sick. AS aimant because she was off sick. AS was concerned to contact the claimant as she did not want to exacerbate her was concerned to contact the claimant as she did not want to exacerbate her symptoms or have this perceivedsymptoms or have this perceived as harassment.as harassment.

[66]I accept AS’ evidence that the OH Report in itself could not be regarded as a I accept AS’ evidence that the OH Report in itself could not be regarded as a grievance.grievance. This isThis is primarily because it was not written by the claimant and did primarily because it was not written by the claimant and did not contain any specific complaints or details. Indeed, the OH Report noted that not contain any specific complaints or details. Indeed, the OH Report noted that the writer could not comment on the veracity of the claimant’s account but only the writer could not comment on the veracity of the claimant’s account but only on her perceptions of her on her perceptions of her treatmetreatment innt in the workplace.the workplace. Telephone Call Telephone Call -- claimant and AS claimant and AS –– 23 February 202323 February 2023

[67]There was no note of this call, but at page 380 there was an email sent at 13.15 There was no note of this call, but at page 380 there was an email sent at 13.15 by AS referring to the meeting “this morning” by AS referring to the meeting “this morning” –– there was no reference to a there was no reference to a telephone call. The contetelephone call. The content of the email referred to the fact that if the claimant nt of the email referred to the fact that if the claimant did not wisht did not wisht ttoo return to NRG and wished to apply for a role at another of the return to NRG and wished to apply for a role at another of the respondent’s sites she would need to look at the vacancy lists and apply for respondent’s sites she would need to look at the vacancy lists and apply for those roles. As an internal candidate, shthose roles. As an internal candidate, she would take priority.e would take priority. Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 11 of 18

[68]The claimant alleges in the List of Issues (1.1.1The claimant alleges in the List of Issues (1.1.1.9) that during a telephone call .9) that during a telephone call AS told her to consider applying for another job at a different site and not to AS told her to consider applying for another job at a different site and not to take any further sick leave. However, in her own witness statement (ptake any further sick leave. However, in her own witness statement (paragraph aragraph 66) the claimant accepts that she met with AS (not a telephone ca66) the claimant accepts that she met with AS (not a telephone call as alleged) ll as alleged) and that the claimant explained that she wished to explore being relocated to and that the claimant explained that she wished to explore being relocated to another nursery. This is contrary to the allegation made in the List of Issues. another nursery. This is contrary to the allegation made in the List of Issues.

[69]Given tGiven the inconsistency in the claimant’s own evidencehe inconsistency in the claimant’s own evidence, I find that the claimant, I find that the claimant had not satisfied the burden of proof to show that this is a breach of the implied had not satisfied the burden of proof to show that this is a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence.duty of trust and confidence. Telephone Call Telephone Call –– claimant to AS 8 March 2023/email 9 March 2023claimant to AS 8 March 2023/email 9 March 2023 (pag(page 395)e 395)

[70]The claimant says in her witness statement (paragraph 68) The claimant says in her witness statement (paragraph 68) that in the telephone that in the telephone call on 8 March AS told her that if she wished to complain she needed to raise a call on 8 March AS told her that if she wished to complain she needed to raise a formal grievance.formal grievance.

[71]On 9 March the claimant emailed AS and summarised the content of the On 9 March the claimant emailed AS and summarised the content of the call, call, she referred to her “raising verbally” with AS over the lasshe referred to her “raising verbally” with AS over the last 2 years, the complete t 2 years, the complete breakdown of her working relationship with AC: referring to unfair treatment and breakdown of her working relationship with AC: referring to unfair treatment and bullying tactics. The claimant referred to seeking legal advice. bullying tactics. The claimant referred to seeking legal advice.

[72]Again, the claimantAgain, the claimant confirmed in cross examination that there was no confirmed in cross examination that there was no reference to reference to raising a formal grievance, even though raising a formal grievance, even though ((on her own evidenceon her own evidence)) AS AS had told her she needed to do so.had told her she needed to do so.

[73]I find that the call and the follow up email were not an informal grievanceI find that the call and the follow up email were not an informal grievance. I also . I also note thanote that even if were to be wrong on this point, the claimant resigned tt even if were to be wrong on this point, the claimant resigned the next he next day, alleging constructive dismissal, possibly after having taken legal advice.day, alleging constructive dismissal, possibly after having taken legal advice. This conduct suggested that the claimant did not hThis conduct suggested that the claimant did not have any faitave any faith in the grh in the grievance ievance process.process. Claimant’s R Claimant’s Resignationesignation dated 10 March dated 10 March 2023 (2023 (page 399)page 399) and Reasonsand Reasons

[74]This was sent to AS and referred to resigning “with immediate effect from 10 This was sent to AS and referred to resigning “with immediate effect from 10 March 2023”. However, the claimant March 2023”. However, the claimant said said that she had intended to give 4 that she had intended to give 4 weeks’ notice. The claimant accepted that she had beeweeks’ notice. The claimant accepted that she had been paid up to 9 April and n paid up to 9 April and had received outstanding holihad received outstanding holiday pay as at that date.day pay as at that date.

[75]The claimant said she had been forced out of her job due to the bullying, The claimant said she had been forced out of her job due to the bullying, harassment and unfair treatment she had endured from AC and the lack of harassment and unfair treatment she had endured from AC and the lack of support from the respondent gesupport from the respondent generally.nerally. Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 12 of 18

[76]I asked the claimant when she had decided tI asked the claimant when she had decided that her relationship with AC had hat her relationship with AC had broken down. At paragraph 38 of her witness statement the claimant said that broken down. At paragraph 38 of her witness statement the claimant said that she felt this had happened as at 17 May 2022. The claimant had also said in she felt this had happened as at 17 May 2022. The claimant had also said in cross examinatiocross examination that she could not continue at work as n that she could not continue at work as from from 30 Novembe30 November r 2022 which is why she went on sick leave as from 1 December 2022.2022 which is why she went on sick leave as from 1 December 2022.

[77]The claimant accepted that she felt her relationship with AC had broken down The claimant accepted that she felt her relationship with AC had broken down but that she had been hoping for a resolution and it wbut that she had been hoping for a resolution and it was only after the as only after the conversation with AC on 8 March that sconversation with AC on 8 March that she had decided to resign. She had to he had decided to resign. She had to consider her health.consider her health. The claimant’s evidence as to when she felt her The claimant’s evidence as to when she felt her relationship with AC had broken down was inconsistent and cannot be relied relationship with AC had broken down was inconsistent and cannot be relied upon for that reasoupon for that reason.n. Furthermore, the last complaint made by the claimant Furthermore, the last complaint made by the claimant whichwhich potpotentially relates to AC is in November 2022.entially relates to AC is in November 2022.

[78]The claimant also said in her oral evidence that shThe claimant also said in her oral evidence that she had never been told by any e had never been told by any of her Union reps (including MM) that she should raise a formal grof her Union reps (including MM) that she should raise a formal grievance. ievance.

[79]MM’s evidence was not helpful MM’s evidence was not helpful generally, generally, as it was as it was vague,vague, and she was unable and she was unable to remember dates or specific incidents. However, she did say in cross to remember dates or specific incidents. However, she did say in cross examination that she would always have talked to a member about raising a examination that she would always have talked to a member about raising a grievance, even though grievance, even though the process could be stressful in itself. She would “be the process could be stressful in itself. She would “be surprised” isurprised” if she had not discussed raising a grievance with the claimantf she had not discussed raising a grievance with the claimant as as that that was her “bread and butter”.was her “bread and butter”.

[80]MM said that the claimant had wanted to be as informal as possible. MM could MM said that the claimant had wanted to be as informal as possible. MM could not recall wnot recall when the claimant had raised an informal grievance under the Policy.hen the claimant had raised an informal grievance under the Policy. MM said that she did not think that the claimant had consulted the Union when MM said that she did not think that the claimant had consulted the Union when she raised her formal grievance after she had left employment. MM believed she raised her formal grievance after she had left employment. MM believed she would have told the claimant toshe would have told the claimant to contact ACAS and she would have contact ACAS and she would have reminded her about Employment Tribreminded her about Employment Tribunal time limits.unal time limits. Conclusions

Conclusions

[81]I have not found in the claimant’s favour as regards her allegations concerning I have not found in the claimant’s favour as regards her allegations concerning annual and special leave. I do not find that those instances annual and special leave. I do not find that those instances ((as described byas described by the the claimantclaimant)) would not constitutewould not constitute,, individuallindividually or cumulativelyy or cumulatively, , a breacha breach/breaches/breaches of the implied duty of trust and confidence. of the implied duty of trust and confidence. In most cases the claimant wasIn most cases the claimant was given the leave given the leave she requested, althoshe requested, although she felt ugh she felt she was being treated she was being treated unfavourably.unfavourably.

[82]On the clOn the claimant’s own evidenceaimant’s own evidence in her witness statementin her witness statement, she believed that her , she believed that her relationship with AC had broken down as of May 2022. The claimant did not relationship with AC had broken down as of May 2022. The claimant did not resign until 10 March 2023. This resign until 10 March 2023. This suggests that it was not the breakdown of that suggests that it was not the breakdown of that relationship which led to the clrelationship which led to the claimant’s resignation.aimant’s resignation. Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 13 of 18

[83]As regards the allegation of lack of support from the respondent generally and As regards the allegation of lack of support from the respondent generally and the refusal to treat various matters as raising an informal grievancethe refusal to treat various matters as raising an informal grievance,, I haI have ve found that tfound that twowo out of the four matters could not be regarded as an informal out of the four matters could not be regarded as an informal grievance.grievance.

[84]The outstanding The outstanding matters matters are are the the letter dated 6 December 2022 and the letter dated 6 December 2022 and the stress stress risk questionnaire dated 5 January 2023. risk questionnaire dated 5 January 2023.

[85]I have observed that AS’ evidence as toI have observed that AS’ evidence as to her interpretation of what constitutes an her interpretation of what constitutes an informal grievance under the respondent’s pinformal grievance under the respondent’s policy is a narrow one. AS placed a olicy is a narrow one. AS placed a very literal construction on the various documents presented by the claimant. very literal construction on the various documents presented by the claimant. She would not consider the stress risk questionnaire as aShe would not consider the stress risk questionnaire as a grievance because grievance because that was not its purpose as expressed. The purpose was to get the cthat was not its purpose as expressed. The purpose was to get the claimant laimant back to work and the claimant continued to present Fit Notes saying she was back to work and the claimant continued to present Fit Notes saying she was unable to return. Until she was able to return no discussion could be had with unable to return. Until she was able to return no discussion could be had with her.her. ThThis included any further investigation of the content of the letter of 6 is included any further investigation of the content of the letter of 6 December 2022.December 2022.

[86]As I have said this is a narrow and restrictive interpretation of what could As I have said this is a narrow and restrictive interpretation of what could constitute a grievance. On similar facts as those before me, many other constitute a grievance. On similar facts as those before me, many other managers may well have held an investigation or at the very least, a meeting managers may well have held an investigation or at the very least, a meeting with both AC and the claimawith both AC and the claimant.nt. The claimant was on sick leave but could have The claimant was on sick leave but could have been contacted by telephone or Zoom communication. She could have had a been contacted by telephone or Zoom communication. She could have had a Union rep present to support her. Union rep present to support her. The OH report made references to mediation The OH report made references to mediation and other possible resolutions.and other possible resolutions. There was no evidence thaThere was no evidence that these were pursued t these were pursued by the by the respondentrespondent..

[87]I find that AS’ conduct in I find that AS’ conduct in not treating the letter of 6 December 2022 and the not treating the letter of 6 December 2022 and the stress risk questionnairestress risk questionnaire informal grievanceinformal grievancess is unreasonable in all the is unreasonable in all the circumstances.circumstances.

[88]However, as I am reminded by the legal However, as I am reminded by the legal authoritiauthoritieses, , unreasonableunreasonable conduct is conduct is not of itself enough to breach the implied term of trust and confidence. Whilst I not of itself enough to breach the implied term of trust and confidence. Whilst I do not endorse the respondent’s conduct in this matter, I do not find that it was do not endorse the respondent’s conduct in this matter, I do not find that it was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust ancalculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence d confidence betbetween the claimant and the respondent.ween the claimant and the respondent. AS had told the claimant that she AS had told the claimant that she coucould ld raise a formal grraise a formal grievance if she wished and if she had done so, this wouldievance if she wished and if she had done so, this would have been dealt with unhave been dealt with under the Policy.der the Policy.

[89]Further I note that the claimant could have raiFurther I note that the claimant could have raised a formal grievance at various sed a formal grievance at various points during her employment. She was aware of the Policypoints during her employment. She was aware of the Policy and/or had access and/or had access to itto it. Given MM’s evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant . Given MM’s evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant was advised of her rights under that policywas advised of her rights under that policy by her union represby her union representativeentative. On her . On her own evidence the claimant said that AS told her to raise a formal grievance own evidence the claimant said that AS told her to raise a formal grievance during the call on 8 March 2023. She was able to raise a formal grievance on during the call on 8 March 2023. She was able to raise a formal grievance on the relevant form on 13the relevant form on 13 May 2023 (pages 423May 2023 (pages 423--425) after she had left 425) after she had left Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 14 of 18 employment. She ga employment. She gave no plausible explanation as to why she had not done so ve no plausible explanation as to why she had not done so before.before.

[90]As I have As I have ffound no repudiatory bound no repudiatory breaches breaches by the respondent, ty the respondent, the claimant’s he claimant’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal is not successful.claim for constructive unfair dismissal is not successful. I must add that I do not I must add that I do not question the genuineness oquestion the genuineness of thef the claimant’s belief/perception that she was claimant’s belief/perception that she was unfairly treated by AC, AS and the respondent. However, I must make findings unfairly treated by AC, AS and the respondent. However, I must make findings of fact based on the evidence put before me and I must apply the legal of fact based on the evidence put before me and I must apply the legal principles to those facts, which I have done.principles to those facts, which I have done. APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 1 –– AGREAGREED LIST OF ISSUESED

List of Issues

[1]UNFAIR DISMISSAL 1.1 Was the claimant dismissed?1.1.1 Did the respondent do the following things:1.1.1.1 Did the claimant's line manager, Ann Curran, bully the claimant in their daily interactions;

1.1.1.2 Unreasonably refuse the claimant's requests for annual leave and harass her in relation to her requests on a number of occasions, as set out in the ET1 for case number 2213553/2023. Specifically, did the Respondent do the following:1.1.1.2.1 Refuse annual leave because the Claimant needed to set up tables?

1.1.1.2.2 On 13 August 2021 refuse her request for a half day annual leave and making her take her holiday suitcase into work?

1.1.1.2.3 On 8 April 2021, tell the Claimant that if someone called in sick while she was on leave, she would have to return if the Respondent called her? 1.1.1.2.4. Initially refuse the Claimant’s request to attend a funeral of a child she used to care for, on 23 July 2021 because this was during the summer break?

1.1.1.3 Refuse the claimant's request for time off to collect her daughter from hospital in July 2021 (the surgery was later cancelled);

1.1.1.4 Refuse the claimant's request for special leave to care for her disabled aunt in 2020, when the claimant's aunt had to be evacuated from her home during the night because of a gas leak, and the claimant requested leave the next day to care for her; Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 15 of 18

1.1.1.5 Refuse the claimant's request for special leave to attend an appointment at her disabled aunt's home to assist with medical equipment being delivered on 11 October 2021

1.1.1.6 Did Ann Curran, during or around November 2022, micromanage the claimant and set her up to fail, including by assigning reception duties to the claimant during her non-contact time on at least 3 occasions, and reprimanding her for making notes using "tapestry" outside of her non-contact time on 30 November 2022;

1.1.1.7 Fail to discuss or review the claimant's work-related stress risk assessment questionnaire dated 5 January 2023;

1.1.1.8 Fail to discuss the claimant's occupational health report dated 2 February 2023;

1.1.1.9 Did Ana Seville, during a call on 23 February 2023, tell the claimant to consider applying for another job at another centre and advise her not to take any more sick leave, but use her annual leave instead;

1.1.1.10 Fail to respond to the claimant's complaints of bullying and harassment by Ann Curran, which the claimant made:

1.1.1.11 In a supervision meeting on 26 October 2021;

1.1.1.12 In an email dated 6 December 2022;

1.1.1.13 In a telephone call to Ana Seville on 8 March 2023, which was followed up by an email on 9 March 2023; 1.1.1.11 Fail to consider the claimant's complaints set out at paragraph 1.1.1.10 and the stress risk questionnaire dated 5 January 2023 as grievances.

1.1.2 Did that breach the implied term of trust and confidence? The Tribunal will need to decide:1.1.2.1 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 the respondent; and

1.1.2.2 whether it had reasonable and proper cause for doing so.

1.1.3 Did the claimant resign in response to the breach? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the breach of contract was a reason for the claimant's resignation. Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 16 of 18

1.1.4 Did the claimant affirm the contract before resigning? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the claimant's words or actions showed that they chose to keep the contract alive even after the breach. 1.3 Was it a potentially fair reason? 1.4 Did the respondent act reasonably or unreasonably in all the circumstances, including the respondent's size and administrative resources, in treating that reason as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant? 1.5 The Tribunal's determination whether the dismissal was fair or unfair must be in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.

[2]REMEDY FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL2.1 Does the claimant wish to be reinstated to their previous employment?

2.2 Does the claimant wish to be re-engaged to comparable employment or other suitable employment?

2.3 Should the Tribunal order reinstatement? The Tribunal will consider in particular whether reinstatement is practicable and, if the claimant caused or contributed to dismissal, whether it would be just.

2.4 Should the Tribunal order re-engagement? The Tribunal will consider in particular whether re-engagement is practicable and, if the claimant caused or contributed to dismissal, whether it would be just.

2.5 What should the terms of the re-engagement order be?

2.6 If there is a compensatory award, how much should it be? it The Tribunal will decide:2.6.1 What financial losses has the dismissal caused the claimant?

2.6.2 Has the claimant taken reasonable steps to replace their lost earnings, for example by looking for another job?

2.6.3 If not, for what period of loss should the claimant be compensated?

2.6.4 Is there a chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed, or for some other reason?

2.6.5 If so, should the claimant's compensation be reduced? By how much? Case Numbers: 2213043 & 2213553/2023 17 of 18

2.6.6 Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply?

2.6.7 Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it?

2.6.8 If so is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant? By what proportion, up to 25%?

2.6.9 If the claimant was unfairly dismissed, did they cause or contribute to dismissal by blameworthy conduct?

2.6.10 If so, would it be just and equitable to reduce the claimant's compensatory award? By what proportion?

2.6.11 Does the statutory cap of fifty-two weeks' pay or £105,707 apply? Employment Judge Henderson