Claimant v Portico Property Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found none of the alleged breaches occurred as a matter of fact, or if they did, they did not amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to work and accepting a promotion. The claimant was not constructively dismissed; she resigned.
The claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not entitled to treat the contract as at an immediate end. As the claimant was not constructively dismissed, there was no entitlement to pay in lieu of notice.
The tribunal found the claimant was not treated less favourably than her male comparator. The male colleague was brought back from furlough to do his own work, not the claimant's. The redundancy pool of one was reasonable and the offer of bumping showed the respondent's desire to retain the claimant. No less favourable treatment was found and no link to sex was established.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a senior paralegal by an estate agency from October 2017 to November 2020. She complained of bullying by her manager relating to workload allocation after 2019 redundancies, refusal of leave, monitoring of attendance, and alleged discrimination in being placed on furlough while a male colleague returned. In October 2020 she was placed at risk of redundancy in a pool of one and offered a paralegal role via bumping, which she believed was a demotion. She resigned on 25 November 2020 claiming constructive dismissal and direct sex discrimination.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the alleged breaches either did not occur as a matter of fact, or if they did, they did not amount to a breach of trust and confidence. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the paralegal and senior paralegal roles were different, that the redundancy pool was reasonable, and that the male colleague was unfurloughed first for legitimate business reasons unrelated to sex. The claimant resigned and was not dismissed.
Practical note
Tribunals will carefully scrutinise allegations of constructive dismissal and discrimination, and will prefer contemporaneous documentary evidence and the evidence of decision-makers over a claimant's subjective perception of events, especially where the claimant continued working and accepted promotion after the alleged breaches.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301004/2021
- Decision date
- 30 January 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Paralegal
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister