In  Williams v Meddygfa Rhydbach Surgery and others, Williams (W) was a practice manager at the surgery, having been promoted in 1996. The partners had been dissatisfied with W’s performance for quite some time. The collective view was that she was not taking managerial responsibility to improve practice efficiency. They considered W had been over-promoted by previous partners, that she was not up to the task and told her she was not meeting their expectations. They did not offer W training or any guidance, set targets or issue any explicit warnings. But they did subject her to prolonged and often unexpected criticism which W reasonably considered to have come ‘out of the blue’ as she had not been criticised since commencing employment in 1986. Dr. Smits’ conduct, in particular, towards W, on occasions was rude, aggressive and beyond being civilly “direct”. She was frequently subjected by him to abrupt, curt, accusatory and demanding treatment with a tendency to impatient displays and shouting. W resigned.

An ET upheld W’s constructive dismissal claim. The practice had failed for a considerable length of time to manage W’s performance effectively by way of appraisal or under formal capability procedures. They applied undue emotional pressure on W especially through the oppressive words and actions of Dr Smits with the apparent consent or acquiescence of his partners. W reasonably felt that his words and actions created an intimidating working environment and her feelings were shared at various times by many of her colleagues. She felt that she was being got at; and she was. The practice was even aware of the risk of W resigning and claiming constructive dismissal but carried on applying pressure.  W had no reasonable belief that the practice would treat her fairly. There had been an ‘employment assassination’ which had destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence.

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.