London Borough of Havering

Case Summary

The Claimant's claim for unfair constructive dismissal is well founded and succeeds. The case will be listed for a remedy hearing.

The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively dismissed unfairly, as the employer's conduct was such that the claimant was entitled to resign and treat the employment as terminated.

• •Was the Claimant constructively dismissed in terms of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
• •What was the most recent act (or omission) on the part of the employer which the employee says caused, or triggered, her resignation?
• •Has the Claimant affirmed the contract since that act?
• •If not, was that act (or omission) by itself a repudiatory breach of contract?
• •If the act was not itself a repudiatory breach of contract, was that act nevertheless a part of a course of conduct comprising several acts and omissions which, viewed cumulatively, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence?

1 CE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs D DeSouza Respondent: London Borough of Havering Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 23rd and 24th June 2022 and 8th September 2022 Before: Tribunal Judge Overton acting as an Employment Judge Representation: Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr Moher, Solicitor, One Source This has been a remote hearing which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing Cloud Video Platform and was fully remote. A face to face hearing was not held because the relevant matters could be determined in a remote hearing. RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant’s claim for unfair constructive dismissal is well founded and succeeds. 2. The case shall be listed for a remedy hearing. REASONS Issues Constructive Unfair Dismissal 1 At the outset of the hearing the following issues were identified as relevant: Was the Claimant constructively dismissed in terms of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, applying the questions set out by the Court of Appeal in Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 978? 2 1.1. What was the most recent act (or omission) on the part of the employer which the employee says caused, or triggered, her resignation? 1.1.1 The Claimant contends that Evonne Hudson failed to adequately respond to Ms DeSouza’s email of 20 May 2021, which described the physical and emotional effects upon the Claimant of the changes to her work circumstances from the week before. Ms DeSouza claims this was a neglect of the Respondent’s duty of care to the Claimant. The Claimant says this failure was the most recent act on the Respondent’s part that caused, or triggered, the Claimant’s resignation. 1.2 Has the Claimant affirmed the contract since that act? The Respondent does not allege that this act was affirmed by the Claimant. If the Claimant relies on previous acts, however, the …