Claimant v T Jegajeevan

The tribunal found no serious breach of contract that destroyed trust and confidence. The respondent's actions (minor pay issues, no proven discrimination) did not entitle the claimant to resign and claim constructive dismissal. The claim lacked merit.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not breach the contract in a manner sufficiently serious to destroy or seriously damage mutual trust and confidence. The proven breaches (minor underpayment of £65.64 and unpaid holiday pay) were not repudiatory breaches.

The claimant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable across her ET1, witness statement, and oral testimony. The tribunal did not find credible evidence that the respondent subjected her to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy on 11 May 2022.

The tribunal did not accept that the claimant was called a 'Russian spy'. The claimant's evidence was confused and contradictory. The tribunal found the respondent may have mistrusted staff generally, including the claimant, but not because of perceived Russian origin. No less favourable treatment proven.

The tribunal accepted the claimant accrued 20.8 hours of holiday pay that was not paid on termination. The statutory calculation was clear: the respondent failed to pay £228.80 gross for accrued but untaken holiday.

The tribunal found an underpayment of £65.64 in the April 2022 payslip, supported by the wage slip and bank evidence. This constituted an unauthorised deduction from wages.

The claimant succeeded only on unpaid holiday pay and the April underpayment. Claims for expenses (£15.17), further arrears, pension enrolment breaches, and grievance procedure failures were not proven due to lack of credible or corroborating evidence.