Claimant v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

The tribunal found no evidence that the alleged breaches formed part of the reasons for the claimant's resignation. The claimant's resignation letter identified entirely different reasons (salary reduction, inability to increase hourly pay, lack of indication of contract extension). The claimant also sought to retract her resignation and work beyond her notice period, which the tribunal considered an affirmation of the contract. The claimant herself stated in a GP letter that she had 'no idea why she handed in her resignation', undermining the claim that it was in response to breaches.

The tribunal found no substantial disadvantage arising from the claimant's disability (COPD). There was no nexus between the disability (which caused fatigue in activities like housework and climbing stairs) and the provision of equipment such as a laptop, phone or chair. The tribunal also found that the First Respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of any disadvantage in March 2020. In any event, reasonable adjustments were made: the laptop was provided on 1 June 2020, the phone request was not required as the claimant could use Zoom/Teams, and the chair request was approved on 24 September 2020 but the claimant resigned the next day.

The claimant alleged breach of clause 3 of her employment contract requiring the Second Respondent to promote her interests and assist in securing a permanent position. The tribunal found no evidence the claimant contacted the Second Respondent for assistance with securing a permanent role. The complaint was directed at Ms Adams (an employee of the First Respondent, not the Second Respondent). This did not form part of the reasons for the claimant's resignation.

The tribunal found the claimant was paid correctly in respect of holiday pay. The claimant alleged she was entitled to 33 days' holiday per year based on an email from a previous agency (E-Personnel), but the tribunal found no reliable corroborative evidence to support this. The claimant was entitled to 30 days per year under her contract with Adecco and took 29.5 days, suggesting she understood her entitlement. The variations in pay were explained by variations in hours worked, not unlawful deductions. The tribunal accepted the Second Respondent's calculations and found no cogent evidence of missing holiday pay.

This claim related to the same holiday pay issues as the unlawful deductions claim. The tribunal found the claimant's statutory holiday pay was calculated correctly by reference to her average remuneration over the previous 12 weeks. The claimant was paid her correct hourly rate for holiday. The tribunal accepted the Second Respondent took the claimant's concerns seriously, requested supporting documents, and provided a reasonable explanation for all variations in pay.

Claim under Agency Worker Regulations 2010 that the claimant was not provided with the same equipment as permanent employees. The tribunal found no evidence the claimant was treated differently because she was an agency worker. Equipment was provided by the First Respondent and the requests were approved. The laptop was provided on 1 June 2020, and the headset request was approved on 24 September 2020. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment compared to comparable permanent employees.

Claim under Agency Worker Regulations 2010 for additional payments for additional duties (supervisory/training work) between September 2017 and September 2019. The tribunal found no evidence the claimant was carrying out work outside her job description. The tribunal accepted that three other employees who received honorarium payments were more senior, engaged in managerial and supervisory work, and were not comparable employees within the meaning of regulation 5(4)(a). This claim was also found to be out of time (12 months out of time by August 2020) and time was not extended.

Claim for failure to provide written particulars. The tribunal found the claimant's core duties did not change throughout her time as a Pensions Administrator, so it was not necessary to inform her of duties each time her contract was renewed. The claimant had a good relationship with her team and with the Second Respondent and would have raised any lack of clarity. There was no documentary evidence the claimant queried her role, and this was not mentioned in her resignation email.