Claimant v Flight Club Darts Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant resigned before any breach of the implied term of trust and confidence occurred in relation to holiday pay. The alleged failure to provide a safe working environment during pregnancy was not established. As the claimant did not resign in response to a breach of contract, the claim failed. Even if there had been a breach during pregnancy, the claimant had affirmed it by continuing in employment for over a year.
Allegation 2.6.1 (drunk guests pushing and making comments) was struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear complaints about the actions of third-party customers/guests rather than the respondent's employees or agents.
Allegation 2.6.2 (drunk guests asking inappropriate questions about the pregnancy) was struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear complaints about the actions of third-party customers/guests rather than the respondent's employees or agents.
Allegation 2.6.3 (failure to transfer to reservations team) failed on the merits: the respondent was not aware of any request until 13 September 2022, and thereafter it was not practicable to transfer the claimant. The failure was not because of pregnancy. The complaint was also struck out as it was about a year out of time and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Allegations 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 (harassment by guests) were struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear complaints about the actions of third-party customers/guests rather than the respondent's employees or agents.
Allegation 2.6.3 (failure to transfer to reservations team as harassment) failed on the merits: the conduct was related to pregnancy but did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating a hostile environment, as the decision was wholly reasonable. The complaint was also struck out as it was about a year out of time and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Allegation 2.6.4 (dismissal as discrimination) failed because the tribunal found there was no dismissal at all, as the constructive dismissal claim failed. Without dismissal, the factual basis of the allegation was not established.
The respondent conceded this claim on the second day of the hearing and judgment by consent was entered in the sum of £574.44.
Facts
The claimant worked as a receptionist for the respondent from September 2021 to November 2023. She informed the respondent of her pregnancy in March 2022. Three risk assessments were conducted, and adjustments were made. Her last working day before maternity leave was 23 September 2022. She took maternity leave from October 2022 to October 2023, followed by holiday. In October 2023, she queried her holiday pay, alleging she was underpaid by approximately £90 per week due to incorrect hourly rates being applied. On 31 October 2023, within an hour of querying the pay, she resigned, citing HR's alleged failures to provide a safe working environment during her pregnancy. The respondent conceded the unlawful deduction from wages claim but contested all other claims.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the respondent on all contested claims. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the claimant resigned before any breach of the implied term of trust and confidence occurred in relation to holiday pay, and no breach was established regarding workplace safety during pregnancy. The pregnancy discrimination and harassment claims relating to third-party customer conduct were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The claim regarding failure to transfer to the reservations team failed on the merits and was also out of time. The dismissal-related discrimination claim failed because there was no dismissal. The tribunal did not extend time for out-of-time claims. The claimant succeeded only on the wages claim, which was conceded.
Practical note
Timing is critical in constructive dismissal cases: a resignation sent before a breach of contract occurs cannot be in response to that breach, even if by a matter of hours.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201677/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Receptionist
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No