Claimant v Gratte Brothers Group Limited

Tribunal concluded the employer did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The purported 'last straw' — a request for consent to mediation — was the opposite of conduct calculated to destroy trust. None of the individual complaints, alone or cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach entitling the claimant to resign.

Claimant resigned with immediate effect. As her resignation did not amount to a constructive dismissal, she gave no notice and was not entitled to notice pay.

Tribunal found no less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. Numerous allegations were not established on the facts or did not amount to sex discrimination. Claimant's case relied on assertions not supported by contemporaneous evidence and was frequently contradicted by documents.

Tribunal found no evidence the claimant was treated less favourably because she was in her 30s. Alleged comments about being 'too young' for flexible working were not established on the facts, or were taken out of context.

Claimant argued the employer insisted on office-based work between 8.30am-5pm, disadvantaging women with childcare. Tribunal found no such rigid PCP existed; the employer had a flexible working policy and made adjustments. Even if a PCP existed, the tribunal accepted it was justified by operational needs and business efficiency.

Tribunal found the alleged conduct either did not occur as alleged, was not related to sex, or did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the claimant.

Tribunal found the alleged comments about being 'too young' either did not occur or were not related to age in the sense required by the Equality Act, and did not meet the threshold for harassment.

Claimant relied on a grievance dated 1 March 2022 as a protected act. Tribunal found the alleged detriments (denial of flexible working appeal, suspension, investigation) were not because she had done a protected act. Suspension was a neutral act pending investigation; flexible working decision was based on business needs.

Although the claimant made generalised references to disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments, she did not plead or particularise a claim under Equality Act 2010 s.20–21. The tribunal did not determine this as a standalone claim.

Claimant made passing references to pregnancy discrimination but did not formally plead this as a separate claim. The tribunal addressed pregnancy-related allegations within the context of sex discrimination and constructive dismissal, finding no unlawful treatment.

Claimant's claim for notice pay failed because she resigned with immediate effect and her resignation did not amount to a constructive dismissal, so no breach of contract arose on the part of the employer.

Claimant brought complaints under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.80G (flexible working). Tribunal found the employer followed the statutory process and made decisions on legitimate operational grounds; no breach of statutory flexible working provisions was established.