Edge v Antrim District Citizen's Advi... [2012] NIIT 01468

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 1468/11

CLAIMANT: Rosena Edge

RESPONDENT: Antrim District Citizen’s Advice Bureau

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant's claim of constructive dismissal is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mr I Wimpress

Members: Ms J McNulty

Mr S Kearney

Appearances:

The claimant was not represented and appeared on her own behalf

The respondent was represented by Mr Richards Barrister at Law instructed by Worthingtons, Solicitors

The Claim and the Response

1. The claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal against the respondent. The respondent denied that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed as alleged or at all.

Sources of Evidence

2. The tribunal received an agreed bundle of documents and heard oral evidence from the claimant, Ms Geraldine Haire, Mrs Betty Given and Ms Lorraine Adamson.

The Facts

3. The claimant was employed by the respondent from 3 June 2002 as a Money Advice Worker having previously worked as a volunteer since 1999. The respondent organisation was run by a voluntary board which was chaired by the claimant’s husband, Mr Chris Edge OBE. The claimant’s role changed in 2008 when she became a Senior Adviser with Responsibility for Management Support and Money Advice. The claimant described this role as being the Deputy Manager and we are satisfied that this was a fair description of her role with or without that formal title. In October 2010 the Manager gave notice that he was going to retire at the end of December 2010 and a recruitment process was commenced to appoint his successor. The Management Committee decided that the claimant would be the acting manager for three months until a new manager was recruited. It was agreed that the claimant’s points of contact at board level would the Vice Chair, Ms Geraldine Haire and the treasurer, Mr Sean Casey. The claimant was advised that she would continue in her Money Advice role for 21 hours per week and would be acting manager for 14 hours per week.

4. The claimant’s Money Advice role was dependent on funding by the Department for Enterprise Trade and Industry (“DETI”) which was secured on a year to year basis. The remaining 14 hours of management duties were paid from core funds.

5. Continued funding became an issue in late 2010 and early 2011. The DETI contract was due to come to an end at the end of March 2011 and the Regional CAB Office advised local CAB managers that a redundancy consultation process should commence. The claimant in her capacity as acting manager advised the Board of this development at a committee meeting on 17 March 2011. The Board instructed the claimant to issue protective redundancy notices. These were issued on 30 March 2011 to the claimant and several other staff. The Chair, Mr Edge, signed the protective redundancy notices including one addressed to the claimant.

6. The protective redundancy notice addressed to the claimant was dated 1 February 2011, and informed her that the funding of her position as Money Advisor was no longer available. The letter read as follows:

“We are sorry to inform you that the funding for your post as DETI Money Advice worker has ceased, therefore we cannot sustain the position beyond 31 March 2011. It is our duty to advise you that you are on a Protective Redundancy Notice from 1 February 2011 and that your employment will end on 31 March 2011. We further advise you that under current employment legislation, should another position, where you would meet the criteria, become available during the notice period, we will offer you the opportunity to continue your employment with us.”

7. On 28 February 2011 a tender was issued in relation to CAB work which stated that no funding was available for money advice posts in the Antrim and Fermanagh CABs. The claimant canvassed local politicians to try to have the decision reversed. The claimant also started closing money advice cases and she found informing clients of this both upsetting and difficult.

8. The respondent advertised the vacant manager’s post. The claimant applied for the post and was shortlisted for interview. The interview took place on 11 March 2011. The claimant was unsuccessful however and was informed of the outcome on 14 March 2011. The claimant was upset and disappointed. She was also hurt at receiving a standard letter informing her of the decision and thanking her for her interest in the post. As an internal candidate the claimant expected that someone from the management committee would come and speak to her. The claimant also expected to be informed as to when the new manager, Ms Adamson, would be taking up her post. In addition, the claimant remained concerned that she might be made redundant.

9. As a result of receiving no contact from the Management Committee in relation to redundancy the claimant sent a grievance letter to the Vice-Chair, Ms Geraldine Haire on 24 March 2011. In the grievance letter the claimant complained in the following terms:

“I wish to raise a grievance against Antrim District Citizens Advice Bureau. I am employed by Antrim District CAB as a Senior Advisor offering Management Support with responsibility for Money Advice. I received a Protective Redundancy Notice from Antrim CAB on 1^st February 2010 after DETI, who funded my post, decided not to fund money advice in Antrim Bureau after 31^st March 2011. It states on the protective redundancy letter and under current employment legislation, should another post become available where I meet the criteria in this period, it would be offered to me.

The post of Manager was available and as I have been employed in a managerial role in the bureau for the last 3 years, for the last 3 months I have been acting manager and as I was deemed acceptable for interview, under the terms of protective redundancy I feel I should have been offered the managers post.

Failure to consult with me about the protective redundancy notice and failure to offer me suitable alternative employment, which was available, may I believe, be a breach of the employers’ duty of care and employment law. This may constitute an unfair dismissal if redundancy proceeds.”

10. The claimant remained concerned that she was going to be made redundant on 31 March 2011 as she knew from her work with the CAB accounts that it did not have the resources to keep her in post. The claimant as acting manager continued to manage the day to day running of the organisation and also continued to close the money advice files. The claimant alleged that this was made more difficult by the absence of contact or information from the trustee board.

11. On 31 March 2011 the claimant received an email from Ms Haire informing her that interim measures in place to allow staff to work extra hours should remain in place for another month. Two staff were working extra hours at this point. The claimant responded by asking Ms Haire whether this included her as acting manager and Ms Haire replied that it did.

12. On 5 April 2011 Ms Haire asked the claimant if she and Betty Given, another trustee board member could meet with her to discuss CAB business. They asked the claimant for information about the day to day running of the CAB, staff numbers and hours and the status of money advice clients. Ms Haire also asked the claimant if she would sign an Access NI form for the new manager and whether the claimant would consider working in another CAB office. The claimant queried whether Mrs Given was suggesting that she needed to be looking for another post and Mrs Given explained that her reason for asking was that she might hear of posts in the organisation in her capacity as a trustee board member. The claimant responded that she had access to the CAB database where any such post would be advertised. The claimant sought information about her situation which she found unsettling and Ms Haire indicated that the trustee board was meeting the following evening when they would be discussing the matter. The meeting concluded with Ms Haire informing the claimant that her grievance would be heard by Mrs Given and Mr Seamus Davis, another trustee board member. Mrs Given also asked for a copy of the CAB grievance procedure.

13. On 12 April 2011 the claimant wrote to Ms Haire and expressed concern about the delay in hearing her grievance. The claimant pointed out that under the CAB’s grievance policy she should have received a written response within 10 working days of lodging the grievance.

14. On 13 April 2011 the Mayor of Antrim, Ms Pam Lewis phoned the claimant and informed her that DETI funding would be reinstated for Antrim and Fermanagh. On the same day Ms Haire wrote to the claimant and advised that the protective redundancy notice had expired. Ms Haire’s letter was received by the claimant on 16 April 2011. Notwithstanding this positive development the claimant remained distressed and could not eat or sleep.

15. On 15 April 2011 Alayne Kinver, the Director of Development at the CAB Regional Office, wrote to Ms Haire and advised that further to a meeting with DETI on the same date Antrim CAB would form part of the Face to Face Debt Advice Contract but that this offer was subject to the current conflict of interest position being resolved.

16. The claimant contacted her solicitor because she was concerned about the lack of a response to her grievance. The solicitor wrote to Ms Haire on 19 April 2011 and raised a number of matters. The solicitor advised that the claimant had been told that a new permanent manager would be taking up employment from the beginning of May 2011. The solicitor referred to the claimant not being appointed as manager despite acting up, the delay in responding to her grievance, being informed that the protective redundancy notice had expired and was not effective, being informed that funding for her post had ceased, not being informed about her continuing post and employment situation and being told to close all of her files and inform financial advice clients that she could no longer work for them due to funding running out. The solicitor asserted that this conduct was unreasonable and was seriously damaging to the relationship of trust and confidence. In addition, the solicitor raised a second grievance asking that the first grievance be addressed.

17. On 21 April 2011 the claimant received a letter advising that the grievance hearing would take place on 27 April 2011.

18. On 22 April 2011 Ms Haire sent an email to the Money Advice email address informing the claimant that Ms Adamson had been appointed as manager and would be starting work on 4 May 2011. A further email was also sent to the claimant at the manager’s email address drawing her attention to the previous email. According to the claimant she did not see either email.

19. The grievance meeting in fact proceeded on 24 April 2011 as the date given in the letter was erroneous. It was heard by Mrs Betty Given and Mr Seamus Davis. In her evidence to the tribunal Mrs Given stated that the delay in dealing with the matter was due to Mr Davis’ ill-health and other commitments. The claimant provided the panel with a prepared written statement and was given the opportunity to discuss her grievance. At the end of the hearing the claimant stated that she still did not know whether she had a job. Mr Davis responded that he had certain information but was not allowed to disclose it. Mrs Given indicated that she thought that the new manager was starting at the beginning of June. Mr Davis told the claimant that she should continue as acting manager after the Bank Holiday. After the meeting concluded there was an informal discussion about the timeframe for a decision and Mr Davis said that it would not get done in a week. The grievance procedure stated that it should be done within 5 days. The claimant said that it was fine.

20. On 2 May 2011 the claimant applied for a post as money advisor in the Lisburn CAB.

21. On 4 May 2011 the new manager, Ms Adamson, started work. The claimant claimed to be shocked and upset by this as she had been led to believe at the grievance meeting that the new manager would not be taking up the post until June. According to the claimant this was reinforced because she had not received a response from Access NI regarding Ms Adamson’s security check. Ms Haire, Mr Casey and Ms Adamson met initially in the training room which the claimant presumed was to do with her induction. The claimant was annoyed that she was not involved in the induction of the new manager.

22. They subsequently emerged from the training room and entered the general office where Ms Adamson was introduced to the staff. The claimant asked Ms Haire and Mr Casey if she could speak with them. A discussion ensued in the manager’s office where the claimant complained that she was not made aware that Ms Adamson was starting that day and that they had not met with the claimant to discuss her situation. Mr Casey referred to the grievance meeting the previous week and Ms Haire advised the claimant that she sent her an email informing her of Ms Adamson’s start date. The claimant told Ms Haire that she did not receive it and only discovered later that it had been sent to the money advice email address. According to the claimant the money advice service had ceased at the end of March and therefore that computer was no longer in use and Ms Haire would have been well aware of this having sent the claimant another email on the same date about a committee meeting to the manager’s email address. They all then returned to the general office where Ms Haire gave a speech welcoming the new manager. In her evidence to the tribunal the claimant said that she found this experience deeply humiliating. Later that day the claimant received a phone call from the office of Mitchell McLaughlin MLA informing her that DETI funding was going to be reinstated in Antrim and Fermanagh. The claimant did not know whether this was public knowledge and therefore did not mention it to the trustee board. She expected the trustee board to inform her of this development.

23. According to the claimant her husband received an email on 6 May 2011 from Ms Adamson informing him that the next committee meeting would take place on 9 May 2011 and providing him with an agenda. The agenda included a Ms Kinver’s letter of 15 April 2011. Ms Haire’s letter of 13 April 2011 was received by the claimant on 16 April 2011 advising that DETI funding would be reinstated on condition that the conflict of interest in the CAB office was resolved. According to the claimant both she and her husband were shocked and dismayed by this. Mr Edge had been on the committee for ten years and according to the claimant had worked tirelessly on behalf of the CAB and was involved in its move to new premises. The claimant’s post had been funded by DETI for five years and this issue had never arisen previously. According to the claimant both she and her husband doubted that DETI had any interest in the composition of the management committee.

24. The claimant and her husband discussed the situation over the weekend and they decided with great reluctance that it would be in the claimant’s best interests for Mr Edge to resign. According to the claimant the hurt caused by this was compounded by the fact that no pre conditions for DETI funding had been imposed on the Fermanagh CAB where there was also a conflict of interest. Mr Edge resigned on 10 May 2011.

25. On 11 May 2011 Ms Adamson informed the claimant that DETI funding had been reinstated and therefore the claimant could resume the money advice service. The claimant asked whether she would be given a new job description but was told that this would not be necessary.

26. According to the claimant her health was suffering at this time. She could not eat and found it difficult to sleep. She kept hoping that things would improve as she still loved her job.

27. On 20 May 2011 the claimant sent an email to Mr Davis reminding him that she had not received a response to her grievance hearing which should have been issued within five working days of the hearing.

28. On 24 May 2011 the claimant was notified by letter of the outcome of her grievance. Again there was a delay in the provision of the panel’s decision. Ill-health on the part of Mr Davis was again a contributing factor as well as the need to undertake fact finding. The panel considered that there was ample time for the claimant to have raised the issue of whether the manager’s post was the claimant’s of right before the previous manager retired. The panel also considered that the manager’s post was not an equivalent post in terms of alternative employment but a higher ranking post and by implication not suitable alternative employment. The panel accepted that there had been a failure to consult and that adequate procedures would be put in place in future. The findings of the panel also ranged over a number of matters which included the plan to avoid conflict of interest while the claimant was acting manager namely having Ms Haire and Mr Cassidy as points of contact. The net outcome was that the claimant’s grievance was partly upheld. The claimant did not consider that the letter bore any relation to the contents of her grievance or the matters discussed at the grievance hearing. The claimant responded in writing to this effect on 31 May 2011 but received no further communication from either Mr Davis or Mrs Given. The claimant did not appeal.

29. Ms Adamson had arranged to take annual leave during the last two weeks in May. According to the claimant Ms Adamson failed to carry out any hand over duties before departing on holiday except to inform the claimant that she had arranged for two trustee board members to come to the CAB at the end of the month to sign salary cheques. This was disputed by the respondent which maintained that Ms Adamson did give the claimant a list of tasks to undertake whilst she was on annual leave. These included ensuring that all salaries were completed for the month, case checking and follow up on money advice cases.

30. The claimant visited her General Practitioner because the situation was taking a toll on her health. The General Practitioner agreed to give the claimant a sick line but the claimant decided not to go off on sick leave after all as she felt that it would not help matters. We did not see any medical records but accept the claimant’s unchallenged evidence on this point.

31. With the arrival of Ms Adamson the claimant noticed a lot of minor changes in the day to day running of the CAB which she had not been informed about. In particular staff had been instructed that all outgoing post should be checked and signed either by Ms Adamson or the advice session supervisor Roisin Mullin. In her evidence to the tribunal Ms Adamson accepted that the claimant acted as the advice session supervisor on Thursdays and therefore should have been designated as being authorised to carry out this function. Ms Adamson acknowledged that this was an oversight on her part. The claimant also discovered that the manager’s computer password had been changed. As Deputy Manager, the claimant would have had access to this computer to respond to email queries or forward emails addressed to staff or volunteers to them. The claimant’s evidence was that this made her position as Deputy Manager very difficult for her. In addition the claimant was no longer consulted about the preparation for the move to new premises having previously been involved in these preparations. This was even more hurtful to the claimant because she had accessed significant funding to finance the move.

32. The claimant was not sure that she could continue to work at the Antrim CAB as a result of all that had occurred. She needed work and when she was offered an interview for the Lisburn post by letter dated 24 May 2011 she decided to attend. The claimant was subsequently offered the Lisburn post on 26 May 2011. The claimant decided that she had no alternative but to take up this post and resign from her post with Antrim CAB. She decided however to stay on until the end of May in order to ensure that the business would continue until Ms Adamson returned from leave.

33. On 31 May 2011 the claimant tendered her resignation to Ms Haire by email in which she stated that she could “no longer continue to work in the stressful environment that has been created in respect of myself” and that she would be finishing on Friday 3 June. On 3 June 2011 the claimant wrote to Ms Adamson in similar terms. Ms Haire responded to the email to the effect that the claimant could enter into a period of review to resolve the situation but the claimant felt that it was too late because her faith and trust in the Board had been eroded over the previous three months. The claimant therefore did not take up this offer. The claimant alleged that the circumstances of her departure had a significant effect on her physical and mental wellbeing. The claimant commenced work at Lisburn CAB on 7 June 2011.

34. On 28 June 2011 the claimant launched these proceedings by submitting a claim of unfair dismissal. The claimant set out the details of her claim in section 7.4 of her claim form as follows:

“That the Trustee Board did not follow employment law in respect of threatened redundancy. That they did not carry out a redundancy consultation process and that they did not properly respond to my letter of grievance and that they did not fulfil their duty of care to me as their employee. My post of Senior Advisor equates to that of Deputy Manager and during this threatened redundancy period I had been working as Acting Manager. I had applied for the Manager Post but was unsuccessful. Antrim District CAB was made aware that the funding for my core post was not being made available. I lobbied local politicians and they advised that the funding was going to be reinstated. When the new manager was introduced I was not made aware of her starting beforehand and was subjected to a humiliating experience in front of the other staff and volunteers. I was totally sidelined from responsible tasks and when the manager went on holiday without discussing what needed to be done during her absence [this] was the final straw. The impact of this period was damaging my health and I felt that I could not continue. I sent the Acting Chair a letter of resignation and left a position that I had not only worked in but was dedicated to both as a volunteer and paid worker.”

The Law

35. Article 126 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 sets out the right not to be unfairly dismissed and Article 127 in so far as relevant provides as follows:-

“127(1) For the purposes of this Part an employee is dismissed by his employer if (and, subject to paragraph (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.”

36. The authors of Harvey at D1 [403] described four conditions that an employee must meet if they are to claim constructive dismissal.

(1) There must be a breach of contract by the employer. This may either be an actual breach or an anticipatory breach.

(2) That breach must be sufficiently important to justify the employee resigning, or else it must be the last of a series of incidents which justify his leaving. Possibly a genuine, albeit erroneous, interpretation of the contract by the employer will not be capable of constituting repudiation in law.

(3) He must leave in response to the breach and not for some other, connected reason.

(4) He must not delay too long in terminating the contract in response to the employers breach, otherwise he may be deemed to have waived the breach and agreed to vary the contract.

37. The leading case in relation to constructive dismissal is Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp (CA) [1978] ICR 221 in which it was held that an employee’s entitlement to terminate his contract of employment by reason of his employer’s conduct was to be determined in accordance with the law of contract and not by applying a test of unreasonableness to the employer’s conduct. However, the courts mitigated the impact of this approach by recognising that there is an implied contractural term to the effect that the employer should not behave in a manner that would undermine the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.

38. As to the nature of the duty of trust and confidence, it was described by Lord Steyn in Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1997] ICR 606, [1997] IRLR 462 in the following terms:-

'The employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee.'

The precise terms of this formulation have been the subject of comment and refinement. In Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council [2007] ICR 680, [2007] IRLR 232 the Employment Appeal Tribunal had to consider the issue as to whether in order for there to be a breach the actions of the employer had to be calculated and likely to destroy the relationship of confidence and trust, or whether only one or other of these requirements needed to be satisfied. The view taken by the Employment Appeal Tribunal was that the use of the word 'and' by Lord Steyn in this passage was an error of transcription of the previous authorities, and that the relevant test is satisfied if either of the requirements is met. In BG plc v Mr P O’Brien [2001] IRLR 496, Mr Recorder Langstaff QC in giving a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a constructive dismissal case formulated a test as follows:-

“The question is whether, objectively speaking, the employer has conducted itself in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between the employer and the employee.”

39. The courts have also considered situations where a series of incidents has occurred and the employee resigns in response to the last actions of the series which constitute the so-called “last straw”. In Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd [1986] ICR 157, Glidewell LJ stated at page 169 F:-

“The breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of actions on the part of the employer which cumulatively amount to a breach of the term, though each individual incident may not do so. In particular in such a case the last action of the employer which leads to the employee leaving need not itself be a breach of contract; the question is, does the cumulated series of acts taken together amount to a breach of the implied term?… This is the ‘last straw’ situation.”

40. The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the so called last straw doctrine in Thornton Print Ltd v Morton [2008] UKEAT/0090/08/JOJ. In that case Judge Serota QC endorsed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Omilaju v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2005] 1 All ER 75 and stated that:-

“The principle, if it be one, means no more than that the final matter that leads to the acceptance of a repudiatory breach of contract when taken together and cumulatively with earlier conduct entitles a party to accept a repudiatory breach of contract, whether that last matter is in itself a breach of contract or not.”

Submissions

Respondent’s Submission

41. On behalf of the respondent Mr Richards drew attention to significant changes in the claimant’s case. Mr Richards pointed out that in the claimant’s evidence to tribunal, she did not complain about the recruitment process for the manager’s post and not being slotted into the manager’s post and therefore her case was limited to her treatment by the respondent in relation to the alleged failure to consult and to inform her of the start date of the new manager. However, in Mr Richards submission the evidence showed that the claimant did know the start date for the new manager. Although the claimant complained about the delay in conducting her grievance it was not inordinate and the reasons were explained to her. Mr Richards submitted that in reality the claimant was motivated by her failure to secure the Manager’s job. Mr Richards also drew attention to the conflict of interest in relation to the claimant’s husband’s position and suggested that this was a major prompt to the claimant leaving but that she now realised that she could not rely on it in a constructive dismissal claim as such a claim must focus on the treatment of the claimant. In Mr Richards’ submission there was no substance in the claimant’s two alleged last straws namely the grievance outcome and the alleged failure to involve the claimant in hand over duties to Ms Adamson, the new manager. As to the relevant law, Mr Richards relied on Harvey Division D1, section 3, paragraph 4.01 onwards. Mr Richards drew attention to paragraphs 4.33 of Harvey which emphasised that the test as to whether a contract has been breached is objective and that the conduct of the employer must be sufficiently serious in nature and go to the root of the contract to entitle the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal. In Mr Richards’ submission the claimant’s case did not come anywhere near that threshold. In relation to the last straw doctrine Mr Richards relied on paragraph 480 to 481 of Harvey and the Omilaju case as authority for the proposition that the last straw need not be blameworthy or unreasonable but must contribute something to the breach, Mr Richards submitted that in reality the last straws were the failure to secure the manager’s job and the conflict of interest issue involving the claimant’s husband. Mr Richards also drew attention to the fact that the claimant had obtained a new job in the Lisburn CAB by the time of her resignation.

Claimant’s Submission

42. Mrs Edge submitted that she did not expect to be handed the manager’s job but she did expect her redundancy to be considered by the respondent and complained that between January 2011 and April 2011 she did not receive any information from the respondent about her position. As a result of this the claimant felt that she was forced to leave a job that she loved and to take a job outside her own community. According to the claimant the grievance outcome, the handover and the failure to consult were last straws.

Conclusions

43. Although not explicitly stated in the claim form the claimant’s case boils down to a breach of the employer’s duty of trust and confidence which was sufficient to justify the claimant in resigning and claiming constructive dismissal. The claimant sought to make the case that this arose from a series of acts which taken together with a final act, or last straw, entitled her to accept a repudiatory breach of contract and resign. It is necessary therefore to examine objectively the various acts complained of and determine whether the claimant was justified in resigning in reaction to same. In this context as we have seen Mr Richards made great play of apparent changes and inconsistencies in the matters about which the claimant complained and laid particular emphasis on variations in the claimant’s case as to what constituted the so called last straw. In our view this approach is flawed in that it elevates the so called last straw doctrine into something akin to a statutory provision whereas the authorities make clear a somewhat broader approach is to be preferred. However, the tribunal must examine the evidence and decide whether the claim of constructive dismissal is made out. In this context it is entirely legitimate to point to flaws and inconsistencies in the claimant’s case as a way of demonstrating that the claimant was not justified in resigning. The claimant ultimately relied on the following factors:

(1) The failure to consult the claimant about reduncancy.

(2) Being informed that the protective notice had expired and was not effective.

(3) Being informed that funding for her post had ceased.

(4) Not being kept informed about the continuation of her post and her employment situation.

(5) The failure to inform the claimant of the starting date of the new manager.

(6) The delay in the grievance process.

(7) The outcome of the grievance.

(8) The failure to involve the claimant in the hand over to the new manager.

(9) The sidelining of the claimant from responsible tasks.

(10) The new manager’s failure to discuss with the claimant what needed to be done during her absence on holiday.

44. Although the claimant did complain about not being appointed as manager in the letter issued by her solicitor on 19 April 2011 she eschewed this as a basis for her resignation in her evidence to the tribunal. Some of the ten matters can be disregarded immediately. It is clear from the letter of 19 April 2011 from the claimant’s solicitors that she was aware when the new manager would be starting. We are also satisfied that the claimant could reasonably have been expected to have seen the emails that Ms Haire sent on 22 April 2011 advising that Ms Adamson was starting work on 4 May 2011. The delay in the grievance process was not inordinate and was explained to the claimant. There was no substantive complaint by the claimant about the outcome of the grievance and she did not seek to appeal the grievance outcome. The remaining matters are capable, if credible, of providing the basis for a claim of constructive dismissal. However, they are undermined both by the claimant’s inconsistency and the extraneous factors arising from the claimant’s disappointment at not being appointed as manager and the treatment of her husband. It seems to us that these matters weighed heavily with the claimant and are inherently more likely to have prompted the claimant to resign than many of the other matters which in comparison are insubstantial. Other matters such as being sidelined are linked to the claimant’s failure to secure the manager’s post and the inevitable loss of status that came with the arrival of a new manager. The claimant’s reaction to the new manger’s arrival on 4 May 2011 in our view points to the real reason for her resignation. We heard from the new manager as to the arrangements that she put in place in advance of going on holiday and we are satisfied that the claimant’s complaint about this which she described in her claim form as the last straw is without foundation. Ultimately on any conceivable view the evidence does not persuade us that the respondent was in breach of its implied contractual duty of trust and confidence. While we have no doubt that the claimant was genuinely upset and distressed by the turn of events at the CAB we are not satisfied that she was justified in resigning and claiming unfair dismissal. The claim must therefore be dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 25 October 2011 and 8 November 2011, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Edge v Antrim District Citizen's Advi... [2012] NIIT 01468_11IT (01 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/01468_11IT.html Cite as: [2012] NIIT 01468_11IT, [2012] NIIT 1468_11IT

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions