Summary Description: 

A successful constructive dismissal case when management questioned the caring responsibilities of the claimant and the effect on the workplace.  

Background: 

The claimant began work for the respondent in 2003 and worked as a ‘coverer’ which involved making and covering jewellery displays.  

The claimant has a large family and in May 2021 she stepped in to become a carer for a great-grandchild.  The child was placed with her by social services.  There were issues with the child at pre-school and this placed great stress on the claimant.   The respondent was aware of the situation with the caring responsibility but no issues were raised by the claimant or the respondent at the time in relation to work. 

The respondent was described as being supportive by allowing the claimant to take time to for online meetings with social services.  In August 2021 the claimant had a meeting with the directors of the respondent stating that she could see shortened time at school and an upcoming Crown Court trial was likely to have an effect on her work.  One of the directors was angry with her and stated that she had to choose between being a child carer and doing her job.  This was disputed by the respondent.  There were adjustments made for starting and finish times to help with the school run.   The respondent was under the belief that the caring would only be temporary and the child would return to their father when his imprisonment ended, which was estimated at some 6-9 months. 

In Spring of 2022 the caring responsibilities increased as there were regular calls from school and social services. The child was going through the process for special educational needs statement.  This led to irregular attendance at work but some home working was still completed.  On 10th March 2022 the claimant attended work late and the director was frustrated as they were already behind with an order.   This led to a heated exchange with the director stating the child needs a ‘slap’ and asking where the child’s father was.  This led to the claimant stating you obviously don’t want me here and she left the workplace.  She attended the following Monday to return some unfinished homework and materials.  She tended a written resignation on 17th March noting that it was the 10th in which she had her employment terminated.  She brought a claim for unfair dismissal.   

Outcome: 

The claimant argued that the heated exchange with the director amounted to a last straw event leading to a breakdown of trust and confidence between the claimant and respondent. The Tribunal explained that ‘context is everything’ and considering that they had worked closely together for twenty years the conduct was not calculated to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.  However, the test is not about whether it was calculated or intended but rather whether it was likely to destroy the trust and confidence.  It was found that the heated exchange which had both aggressive criticism of the claimant and the employer’s frustration with the caring commitments where it was found to meet the threshold required for a breach of trust and confidence.  Therefore, it was found that there was a dismissal and there was no fair reason for the dismissal advanced meaning the claimant was successful.  Compensation was ordered in the sum of £24,725.35 

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

This case demonstrates the importance of that implied term of trust and confidence. The Tribunal makes two very important points when considering these types of case.  The first is that context is everything and the second is that there is no requirement for the conduct to be intentional.  Instead, one must ask whether it was likely to destroy the trust and confidence between the employee and employer.  

The full case can be read here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66275f70d29479e036a7e501/Stephanie_Lee-Shields_v_Exquisite_Displays_Limited_2601609.2022_Judgment.pdf