September 18, 2026
In this case the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal considered a wide-ranging employment dispute arising from the resignation of a dental nurse following more than six years of employment. The claimant, Agnieszka Tarnawska, worked for the respondent dental practice between January 2019 and August 2025. Following her resignation, she brought claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide written terms of employment, unpaid wages, constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay. The holiday pay claim was resolved before the hearing and the respondent withdrew a counterclaim for failure to give notice.
The principal factual dispute concerned a new air-conditioning system installed at the clinic in approximately April 2025. The claimant suffered from mitral valve prolapse and hypertension and contended that the operation of the air-conditioning system, together with restrictions on her ability to adjust temperature controls, adversely affected her health. She alleged that the temperature fluctuations caused dizziness, increased heart rate, discomfort and difficulty concentrating, and that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. The respondent maintained that the system had been professionally designed and configured to maintain stable temperatures within an appropriate clinical range of 21°C to 23°C, and that any initial difficulties following installation had been resolved. Expert evidence from the air-conditioning engineer supported the respondent's position that the system was intended to maintain relatively constant temperatures and that unrestricted user adjustments could compromise its operation. The Tribunal preferred that evidence and found that, after initial commissioning issues had been addressed, the system was functioning effectively and providing a controlled working environment.
The Tribunal first considered whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013. While the respondent had not formally accepted this, the Tribunal reviewed medical evidence from the claimant's GP and a cardiologist confirming longstanding cardiovascular conditions and the effects of medication, including reduced tolerance to environmental temperature fluctuations. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had a long-term physical impairment capable of adversely affecting normal day-to-day activities and therefore possessed the protected characteristic of disability.
The disability discrimination claim nevertheless failed. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not established that the locked air-conditioning controls placed her at a “substantial disadvantage” compared to persons who were not disabled. Although the Tribunal accepted that temperature fluctuations may have caused discomfort, it regarded that discomfort as no more than minor or trivial and therefore insufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold. Particular weight was given to contemporaneous communications, which referred primarily to discomfort and a sore throat rather than the more serious symptoms later described in the claimant’s witness evidence. The Tribunal concluded that had such significant symptoms genuinely been occurring, they would likely have been communicated to management or medical professionals at the relevant time.
The Tribunal also addressed knowledge and reasonable adjustments. It found that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the claimant suffered from a disability because she had informed management on several occasions of her heart condition and high blood pressure. However, the Tribunal held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the air-conditioning controls were causing a substantial disadvantage related to that disability. The claimant’s communications did not explain that the temperature concerns were producing serious health consequences beyond discomfort.
Furthermore, even if substantial disadvantage had been established, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the claimant unrestricted control over the system would not have been a reasonable adjustment. The system operated on a clinic-wide basis, was intended to maintain stable temperatures in a healthcare environment, and the respondent had offered to set the claimant’s surgery to a temperature of her choosing whilst also permitting her to switch the unit on and off. The evidence showed that unrestricted adjustments risked disrupting the operation of the system as a whole.
The Tribunal next considered the claimant’s complaint that she had not been provided with written terms of employment within four weeks of commencing employment as required by Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant started employment on 14 January 2019 but did not receive a written contract until May 2020, when the respondent required it in connection with Covid furlough arrangements. The respondent accepted the delay. While the claimant had continued to work for several years after receiving the contract, the Tribunal considered that the breach was significant and had caused uncertainty regarding her rights and contractual obligations. Taking into account the lengthy delay, the absence of any reasonable explanation, the uncertainty caused to the claimant and the fact that the respondent was a relatively small employer, the Tribunal awarded compensation of three weeks’ pay, amounting to £2,574.
The claimant also advanced a claim for unpaid wages arising from contractual lay-off provisions. The contract purported to permit lay-off without pay, whilst referring to eligibility for statutory guarantee payments. The claimant argued that she should be paid her normal rate for periods during which she had been laid off over several years. The respondent's position was that the clause permitted lay-off without pay and that the reference to guarantee payments had been carried over from an English template despite no equivalent statutory regime existing in Jersey. Applying established principles of contractual interpretation, the Tribunal held that the clause was clear in permitting unpaid lay-off. Although the drafting was described as “sloppy”, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had no contractual entitlement to wages during those lay-off periods and dismissed the claim.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim was founded upon a number of alleged breaches, including the late provision of the employment contract, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unpaid wages, persistent foul odours within the clinic, difficulties obtaining personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic, occasions when staff used personal funds for work purchases pending reimbursement, and alleged communication failures concerning staffing changes immediately before the claimant's resignation. The Tribunal reviewed each allegation individually and cumulatively in light of established authorities concerning constructive dismissal and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The Tribunal accepted that the delayed provision of a written contract constituted a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence but found that it was not a fundamental breach. The allegations relating to unpaid wages and disability discrimination failed because the underlying claims themselves were unsuccessful. In relation to complaints about foul smells in the clinic, the Tribunal found that management had taken reasonable and active steps over a number of years to identify and remedy the source of the problem. Similarly, while there had been occasional delays in securing appropriate PPE during the unprecedented circumstances of the Covid pandemic, the respondent had made substantial efforts to protect staff and obtain supplies, including sourcing masks internationally. Any shortcomings were regarded as minor and insufficient to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
The Tribunal considered the claimant’s complaints about being required temporarily to use personal funds for small work-related purchases to be trivial, particularly as reimbursement was generally made immediately or within a short period. The incident relied upon as the “final straw” was a weekend message advising staff that a different dentist than previously anticipated would be commencing work on the following Monday. The claimant considered the short notice stressful and disruptive. However, the Tribunal characterised the event as objectively trivial, noting that the claimant remained employed as a dental nurse, her hours and working conditions were unchanged, and the identity of the incoming dentist made little practical difference to her role. Because the alleged final straw was objectively trivial, the constructive dismissal claim failed. The Tribunal further held that even if the various incidents were considered cumulatively, they did not amount to a repudiatory breach going to the root of the employment contract.
Having found that the claimant had resigned rather than been dismissed, the Tribunal also rejected the claim for notice pay. Accordingly, all claims were dismissed save for the claim relating to the late provision of written terms of employment, for which compensation of £2,574 was awarded. The decision provides useful guidance on the threshold for establishing a substantial disadvantage in reasonable adjustment claims, the extent of an employer’s knowledge required to trigger the duty to make adjustments, and the distinction between workplace grievances and conduct sufficiently serious to found a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
In this case the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal considered a wide-ranging employment dispute arising from the resignation of a dental nurse following more than six years of employment. The claimant, Agnieszka Tarnawska, worked for the respondent dental practice between January 2019 and August 2025. Following her resignation, she brought claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide written terms of employment, unpaid wages, constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay. The holiday pay claim was resolved before the hearing and the respondent withdrew a counterclaim for failure to give notice.
The principal factual dispute concerned a new air-conditioning system installed at the clinic in approximately April 2025. The claimant suffered from mitral valve prolapse and hypertension and contended that the operation of the air-conditioning system, together with restrictions on her ability to adjust temperature controls, adversely affected her health. She alleged that the temperature fluctuations caused dizziness, increased heart rate, discomfort and difficulty concentrating, and that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. The respondent maintained that the system had been professionally designed and configured to maintain stable temperatures within an appropriate clinical range of 21°C to 23°C, and that any initial difficulties following installation had been resolved. Expert evidence from the air-conditioning engineer supported the respondent's position that the system was intended to maintain relatively constant temperatures and that unrestricted user adjustments could compromise its operation. The Tribunal preferred that evidence and found that, after initial commissioning issues had been addressed, the system was functioning effectively and providing a controlled working environment.
The Tribunal first considered whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013. While the respondent had not formally accepted this, the Tribunal reviewed medical evidence from the claimant's GP and a cardiologist confirming longstanding cardiovascular conditions and the effects of medication, including reduced tolerance to environmental temperature fluctuations. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had a long-term physical impairment capable of adversely affecting normal day-to-day activities and therefore possessed the protected characteristic of disability.
The disability discrimination claim nevertheless failed. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not established that the locked air-conditioning controls placed her at a “substantial disadvantage” compared to persons who were not disabled. Although the Tribunal accepted that temperature fluctuations may have caused discomfort, it regarded that discomfort as no more than minor or trivial and therefore insufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold. Particular weight was given to contemporaneous communications, which referred primarily to discomfort and a sore throat rather than the more serious symptoms later described in the claimant’s witness evidence. The Tribunal concluded that had such significant symptoms genuinely been occurring, they would likely have been communicated to management or medical professionals at the relevant time.
The Tribunal also addressed knowledge and reasonable adjustments. It found that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the claimant suffered from a disability because she had informed management on several occasions of her heart condition and high blood pressure. However, the Tribunal held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the air-conditioning controls were causing a substantial disadvantage related to that disability. The claimant’s communications did not explain that the temperature concerns were producing serious health consequences beyond discomfort.
Furthermore, even if substantial disadvantage had been established, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the claimant unrestricted control over the system would not have been a reasonable adjustment. The system operated on a clinic-wide basis, was intended to maintain stable temperatures in a healthcare environment, and the respondent had offered to set the claimant’s surgery to a temperature of her choosing whilst also permitting her to switch the unit on and off. The evidence showed that unrestricted adjustments risked disrupting the operation of the system as a whole.
The Tribunal next considered the claimant’s complaint that she had not been provided with written terms of employment within four weeks of commencing employment as required by Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant started employment on 14 January 2019 but did not receive a written contract until May 2020, when the respondent required it in connection with Covid furlough arrangements. The respondent accepted the delay. While the claimant had continued to work for several years after receiving the contract, the Tribunal considered that the breach was significant and had caused uncertainty regarding her rights and contractual obligations. Taking into account the lengthy delay, the absence of any reasonable explanation, the uncertainty caused to the claimant and the fact that the respondent was a relatively small employer, the Tribunal awarded compensation of three weeks’ pay, amounting to £2,574.
The claimant also advanced a claim for unpaid wages arising from contractual lay-off provisions. The contract purported to permit lay-off without pay, whilst referring to eligibility for statutory guarantee payments. The claimant argued that she should be paid her normal rate for periods during which she had been laid off over several years. The respondent's position was that the clause permitted lay-off without pay and that the reference to guarantee payments had been carried over from an English template despite no equivalent statutory regime existing in Jersey. Applying established principles of contractual interpretation, the Tribunal held that the clause was clear in permitting unpaid lay-off. Although the drafting was described as “sloppy”, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had no contractual entitlement to wages during those lay-off periods and dismissed the claim.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim was founded upon a number of alleged breaches, including the late provision of the employment contract, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unpaid wages, persistent foul odours within the clinic, difficulties obtaining personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic, occasions when staff used personal funds for work purchases pending reimbursement, and alleged communication failures concerning staffing changes immediately before the claimant's resignation. The Tribunal reviewed each allegation individually and cumulatively in light of established authorities concerning constructive dismissal and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The Tribunal accepted that the delayed provision of a written contract constituted a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence but found that it was not a fundamental breach. The allegations relating to unpaid wages and disability discrimination failed because the underlying claims themselves were unsuccessful. In relation to complaints about foul smells in the clinic, the Tribunal found that management had taken reasonable and active steps over a number of years to identify and remedy the source of the problem. Similarly, while there had been occasional delays in securing appropriate PPE during the unprecedented circumstances of the Covid pandemic, the respondent had made substantial efforts to protect staff and obtain supplies, including sourcing masks internationally. Any shortcomings were regarded as minor and insufficient to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
The Tribunal considered the claimant’s complaints about being required temporarily to use personal funds for small work-related purchases to be trivial, particularly as reimbursement was generally made immediately or within a short period. The incident relied upon as the “final straw” was a weekend message advising staff that a different dentist than previously anticipated would be commencing work on the following Monday. The claimant considered the short notice stressful and disruptive. However, the Tribunal characterised the event as objectively trivial, noting that the claimant remained employed as a dental nurse, her hours and working conditions were unchanged, and the identity of the incoming dentist made little practical difference to her role. Because the alleged final straw was objectively trivial, the constructive dismissal claim failed. The Tribunal further held that even if the various incidents were considered cumulatively, they did not amount to a repudiatory breach going to the root of the employment contract.
Having found that the claimant had resigned rather than been dismissed, the Tribunal also rejected the claim for notice pay. Accordingly, all claims were dismissed save for the claim relating to the late provision of written terms of employment, for which compensation of £2,574 was awarded. The decision provides useful guidance on the threshold for establishing a substantial disadvantage in reasonable adjustment claims, the extent of an employer’s knowledge required to trigger the duty to make adjustments, and the distinction between workplace grievances and conduct sufficiently serious to found a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
In this case the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal considered a wide-ranging employment dispute arising from the resignation of a dental nurse following more than six years of employment. The claimant, Agnieszka Tarnawska, worked for the respondent dental practice between January 2019 and August 2025. Following her resignation, she brought claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide written terms of employment, unpaid wages, constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay. The holiday pay claim was resolved before the hearing and the respondent withdrew a counterclaim for failure to give notice.
The principal factual dispute concerned a new air-conditioning system installed at the clinic in approximately April 2025. The claimant suffered from mitral valve prolapse and hypertension and contended that the operation of the air-conditioning system, together with restrictions on her ability to adjust temperature controls, adversely affected her health. She alleged that the temperature fluctuations caused dizziness, increased heart rate, discomfort and difficulty concentrating, and that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. The respondent maintained that the system had been professionally designed and configured to maintain stable temperatures within an appropriate clinical range of 21°C to 23°C, and that any initial difficulties following installation had been resolved. Expert evidence from the air-conditioning engineer supported the respondent's position that the system was intended to maintain relatively constant temperatures and that unrestricted user adjustments could compromise its operation. The Tribunal preferred that evidence and found that, after initial commissioning issues had been addressed, the system was functioning effectively and providing a controlled working environment.
The Tribunal first considered whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013. While the respondent had not formally accepted this, the Tribunal reviewed medical evidence from the claimant's GP and a cardiologist confirming longstanding cardiovascular conditions and the effects of medication, including reduced tolerance to environmental temperature fluctuations. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had a long-term physical impairment capable of adversely affecting normal day-to-day activities and therefore possessed the protected characteristic of disability.
The disability discrimination claim nevertheless failed. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not established that the locked air-conditioning controls placed her at a “substantial disadvantage” compared to persons who were not disabled. Although the Tribunal accepted that temperature fluctuations may have caused discomfort, it regarded that discomfort as no more than minor or trivial and therefore insufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold. Particular weight was given to contemporaneous communications, which referred primarily to discomfort and a sore throat rather than the more serious symptoms later described in the claimant’s witness evidence. The Tribunal concluded that had such significant symptoms genuinely been occurring, they would likely have been communicated to management or medical professionals at the relevant time.
The Tribunal also addressed knowledge and reasonable adjustments. It found that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the claimant suffered from a disability because she had informed management on several occasions of her heart condition and high blood pressure. However, the Tribunal held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the air-conditioning controls were causing a substantial disadvantage related to that disability. The claimant’s communications did not explain that the temperature concerns were producing serious health consequences beyond discomfort.
Furthermore, even if substantial disadvantage had been established, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the claimant unrestricted control over the system would not have been a reasonable adjustment. The system operated on a clinic-wide basis, was intended to maintain stable temperatures in a healthcare environment, and the respondent had offered to set the claimant’s surgery to a temperature of her choosing whilst also permitting her to switch the unit on and off. The evidence showed that unrestricted adjustments risked disrupting the operation of the system as a whole.
The Tribunal next considered the claimant’s complaint that she had not been provided with written terms of employment within four weeks of commencing employment as required by Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant started employment on 14 January 2019 but did not receive a written contract until May 2020, when the respondent required it in connection with Covid furlough arrangements. The respondent accepted the delay. While the claimant had continued to work for several years after receiving the contract, the Tribunal considered that the breach was significant and had caused uncertainty regarding her rights and contractual obligations. Taking into account the lengthy delay, the absence of any reasonable explanation, the uncertainty caused to the claimant and the fact that the respondent was a relatively small employer, the Tribunal awarded compensation of three weeks’ pay, amounting to £2,574.
The claimant also advanced a claim for unpaid wages arising from contractual lay-off provisions. The contract purported to permit lay-off without pay, whilst referring to eligibility for statutory guarantee payments. The claimant argued that she should be paid her normal rate for periods during which she had been laid off over several years. The respondent's position was that the clause permitted lay-off without pay and that the reference to guarantee payments had been carried over from an English template despite no equivalent statutory regime existing in Jersey. Applying established principles of contractual interpretation, the Tribunal held that the clause was clear in permitting unpaid lay-off. Although the drafting was described as “sloppy”, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had no contractual entitlement to wages during those lay-off periods and dismissed the claim.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim was founded upon a number of alleged breaches, including the late provision of the employment contract, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unpaid wages, persistent foul odours within the clinic, difficulties obtaining personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic, occasions when staff used personal funds for work purchases pending reimbursement, and alleged communication failures concerning staffing changes immediately before the claimant's resignation. The Tribunal reviewed each allegation individually and cumulatively in light of established authorities concerning constructive dismissal and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The Tribunal accepted that the delayed provision of a written contract constituted a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence but found that it was not a fundamental breach. The allegations relating to unpaid wages and disability discrimination failed because the underlying claims themselves were unsuccessful. In relation to complaints about foul smells in the clinic, the Tribunal found that management had taken reasonable and active steps over a number of years to identify and remedy the source of the problem. Similarly, while there had been occasional delays in securing appropriate PPE during the unprecedented circumstances of the Covid pandemic, the respondent had made substantial efforts to protect staff and obtain supplies, including sourcing masks internationally. Any shortcomings were regarded as minor and insufficient to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
The Tribunal considered the claimant’s complaints about being required temporarily to use personal funds for small work-related purchases to be trivial, particularly as reimbursement was generally made immediately or within a short period. The incident relied upon as the “final straw” was a weekend message advising staff that a different dentist than previously anticipated would be commencing work on the following Monday. The claimant considered the short notice stressful and disruptive. However, the Tribunal characterised the event as objectively trivial, noting that the claimant remained employed as a dental nurse, her hours and working conditions were unchanged, and the identity of the incoming dentist made little practical difference to her role. Because the alleged final straw was objectively trivial, the constructive dismissal claim failed. The Tribunal further held that even if the various incidents were considered cumulatively, they did not amount to a repudiatory breach going to the root of the employment contract.
Having found that the claimant had resigned rather than been dismissed, the Tribunal also rejected the claim for notice pay. Accordingly, all claims were dismissed save for the claim relating to the late provision of written terms of employment, for which compensation of £2,574 was awarded. The decision provides useful guidance on the threshold for establishing a substantial disadvantage in reasonable adjustment claims, the extent of an employer’s knowledge required to trigger the duty to make adjustments, and the distinction between workplace grievances and conduct sufficiently serious to found a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
In this case the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal considered a wide-ranging employment dispute arising from the resignation of a dental nurse following more than six years of employment. The claimant, Agnieszka Tarnawska, worked for the respondent dental practice between January 2019 and August 2025. Following her resignation, she brought claims for disability discrimination, failure to provide written terms of employment, unpaid wages, constructive unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay. The holiday pay claim was resolved before the hearing and the respondent withdrew a counterclaim for failure to give notice.
The principal factual dispute concerned a new air-conditioning system installed at the clinic in approximately April 2025. The claimant suffered from mitral valve prolapse and hypertension and contended that the operation of the air-conditioning system, together with restrictions on her ability to adjust temperature controls, adversely affected her health. She alleged that the temperature fluctuations caused dizziness, increased heart rate, discomfort and difficulty concentrating, and that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. The respondent maintained that the system had been professionally designed and configured to maintain stable temperatures within an appropriate clinical range of 21°C to 23°C, and that any initial difficulties following installation had been resolved. Expert evidence from the air-conditioning engineer supported the respondent's position that the system was intended to maintain relatively constant temperatures and that unrestricted user adjustments could compromise its operation. The Tribunal preferred that evidence and found that, after initial commissioning issues had been addressed, the system was functioning effectively and providing a controlled working environment.
The Tribunal first considered whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Discrimination (Jersey) Law 2013. While the respondent had not formally accepted this, the Tribunal reviewed medical evidence from the claimant's GP and a cardiologist confirming longstanding cardiovascular conditions and the effects of medication, including reduced tolerance to environmental temperature fluctuations. The Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had a long-term physical impairment capable of adversely affecting normal day-to-day activities and therefore possessed the protected characteristic of disability.
The disability discrimination claim nevertheless failed. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not established that the locked air-conditioning controls placed her at a “substantial disadvantage” compared to persons who were not disabled. Although the Tribunal accepted that temperature fluctuations may have caused discomfort, it regarded that discomfort as no more than minor or trivial and therefore insufficient to satisfy the statutory threshold. Particular weight was given to contemporaneous communications, which referred primarily to discomfort and a sore throat rather than the more serious symptoms later described in the claimant’s witness evidence. The Tribunal concluded that had such significant symptoms genuinely been occurring, they would likely have been communicated to management or medical professionals at the relevant time.
The Tribunal also addressed knowledge and reasonable adjustments. It found that the respondent knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the claimant suffered from a disability because she had informed management on several occasions of her heart condition and high blood pressure. However, the Tribunal held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the air-conditioning controls were causing a substantial disadvantage related to that disability. The claimant’s communications did not explain that the temperature concerns were producing serious health consequences beyond discomfort.
Furthermore, even if substantial disadvantage had been established, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the claimant unrestricted control over the system would not have been a reasonable adjustment. The system operated on a clinic-wide basis, was intended to maintain stable temperatures in a healthcare environment, and the respondent had offered to set the claimant’s surgery to a temperature of her choosing whilst also permitting her to switch the unit on and off. The evidence showed that unrestricted adjustments risked disrupting the operation of the system as a whole.
The Tribunal next considered the claimant’s complaint that she had not been provided with written terms of employment within four weeks of commencing employment as required by Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant started employment on 14 January 2019 but did not receive a written contract until May 2020, when the respondent required it in connection with Covid furlough arrangements. The respondent accepted the delay. While the claimant had continued to work for several years after receiving the contract, the Tribunal considered that the breach was significant and had caused uncertainty regarding her rights and contractual obligations. Taking into account the lengthy delay, the absence of any reasonable explanation, the uncertainty caused to the claimant and the fact that the respondent was a relatively small employer, the Tribunal awarded compensation of three weeks’ pay, amounting to £2,574.
The claimant also advanced a claim for unpaid wages arising from contractual lay-off provisions. The contract purported to permit lay-off without pay, whilst referring to eligibility for statutory guarantee payments. The claimant argued that she should be paid her normal rate for periods during which she had been laid off over several years. The respondent's position was that the clause permitted lay-off without pay and that the reference to guarantee payments had been carried over from an English template despite no equivalent statutory regime existing in Jersey. Applying established principles of contractual interpretation, the Tribunal held that the clause was clear in permitting unpaid lay-off. Although the drafting was described as “sloppy”, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant had no contractual entitlement to wages during those lay-off periods and dismissed the claim.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim was founded upon a number of alleged breaches, including the late provision of the employment contract, failure to make reasonable adjustments, unpaid wages, persistent foul odours within the clinic, difficulties obtaining personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic, occasions when staff used personal funds for work purchases pending reimbursement, and alleged communication failures concerning staffing changes immediately before the claimant's resignation. The Tribunal reviewed each allegation individually and cumulatively in light of established authorities concerning constructive dismissal and the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The Tribunal accepted that the delayed provision of a written contract constituted a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence but found that it was not a fundamental breach. The allegations relating to unpaid wages and disability discrimination failed because the underlying claims themselves were unsuccessful. In relation to complaints about foul smells in the clinic, the Tribunal found that management had taken reasonable and active steps over a number of years to identify and remedy the source of the problem. Similarly, while there had been occasional delays in securing appropriate PPE during the unprecedented circumstances of the Covid pandemic, the respondent had made substantial efforts to protect staff and obtain supplies, including sourcing masks internationally. Any shortcomings were regarded as minor and insufficient to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
The Tribunal considered the claimant’s complaints about being required temporarily to use personal funds for small work-related purchases to be trivial, particularly as reimbursement was generally made immediately or within a short period. The incident relied upon as the “final straw” was a weekend message advising staff that a different dentist than previously anticipated would be commencing work on the following Monday. The claimant considered the short notice stressful and disruptive. However, the Tribunal characterised the event as objectively trivial, noting that the claimant remained employed as a dental nurse, her hours and working conditions were unchanged, and the identity of the incoming dentist made little practical difference to her role. Because the alleged final straw was objectively trivial, the constructive dismissal claim failed. The Tribunal further held that even if the various incidents were considered cumulatively, they did not amount to a repudiatory breach going to the root of the employment contract.
Having found that the claimant had resigned rather than been dismissed, the Tribunal also rejected the claim for notice pay. Accordingly, all claims were dismissed save for the claim relating to the late provision of written terms of employment, for which compensation of £2,574 was awarded. The decision provides useful guidance on the threshold for establishing a substantial disadvantage in reasonable adjustment claims, the extent of an employer’s knowledge required to trigger the duty to make adjustments, and the distinction between workplace grievances and conduct sufficiently serious to found a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.