This case concerned a claim for constructive dismissal and whether the grounds relied upon by the claimant, separately or cumulatively, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a pharmacy dispenser at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge. Her line manager was compelled to speak to her on various occasions about her conduct, commenting that she did a lot of idling and a lot of chatting, but apart from this she had no formal disciplinary record. The claimant brought a claim for constructive dismissal, relying on nine grounds, namely:

1. Following pre-planned surgery her line manager, Mrs Ahmed, conducted a sickness absence review meeting in a busy coffee shop;
2. In the interview Mrs Ahmed asked inappropriate questions;
3. A copy of the notes taken at interview were not furnished to the claimant as promised;
4. The claimant did not have a return to work interview following illness;
5. The claimant was told she would be paid SSP as opposed to company sick pay (although in fact she was paid it);
6. Mrs Ahmed allegedly said “Maybe it’s you, you need to change”;
7. She is also alleged to have said “Getting rid of Mel is a work in progress”;
8. There was an alleged failure to manage a grievance submitted by the claimant;
9. An area manager allegedly said “What’s Mel doing here?” at an awards ceremony.

The Court had to consider whether, pursuant to s.94 (1) of Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant was entitled to terminate her contract without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct.

The tribunal rejected most of the grounds relied upon, concluding: the coffee shop was a neutral venue for the sickness absence review meeting; the questioning referred to was inoffensive and taken unnecessarily badly by the claimant; a failure to furnish notes of the interview was minor and not deliberate; a return to work meeting did take place yet should have been formalised; in relation to sick pay, the tribunal stressed the payment of company sick pay is discretionary and not a contractual right, and in any event the claimant was paid it; the remark that maybe the claimant needed to change was to encourage the claimant to look at herself and her behaviour critically; management of the grievance was reactive and not proactive; the comment made at the awards ceremony did not amount to a breach.

However, the tribunal held the seventh allegation, namely, the remark “getting rid of Mel is a work in progress” substantially undermined the employment relationship, amounting to a fundamental breach of the implied term, and thus a fundamental breach of the contract.

“Managers should not be saying such a thing to junior colleagues. I conclude that it was a major contribution to a breach of the implied term, if not a breach in itself… The claimant had a reasonable belief that Mrs Ahmed wanted her out of the business, and was working towards achieving that… these matters are sufficient to severely damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the parties. I am also satisfied that the claimant resigned, at least in substantial part, because of that breach.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b11601740f0b634cfb5056b/Warrington_v_Lloyds.pdf