Executive Assistant Forced to Resign After Employers Misled Her and Forged Her Signature

In Miss Kelly Arnold v Select Enterprises (South East) Limited, an executive assistant won her constructive unfair dismissal claim after a tribunal learned she was forced to resign. Despite previously enjoying a pleasant employment relationship, her work life unravelled when she disclosed her partner’s ex-husband’s positive COVID-19 result.

Read on as we examine exactly what happened and how the executive assistant was forced to resign. We explore the employment tribunal’s judgment and establish how we can help if you’ve faced something similar. With years of employment law experience, Redmans Solicitors can provide specialist advice, enabling us to navigate constructive dismissal claims effectively.

Learn more about how we could help you today by:

The Facts in Miss Kelly Arnold v Select Enterprises (South East) Limited

Why Miss Arnold Felt Forced to Resign: Constructive Dismissal Background

Miss Kelly Arnold (“The Claimant”) began working for Select Enterprises (South East) Limited (“The Respondent”) on 5 January 2015. Initially, she was a payroll administrator, before her role changed to executive assistant on 1 April 2019. Throughout her employment, the respondent was aware of her sexual orientation (she had a female partner) and disability (back condition).

COVID Causes Chaos

On 5 November 2020, as the second COVID-19 lockdown began, the claimant formed a support bubble with Ms Campbell. The two were in a romantic relationship, and while Ms Campbell lived with her soon-to-be ex-husband, they were allowed to meet since the claimant lived alone.

Unfortunately, the estranged husband breached lockdown rules, sharing a car with two friends to play golf without wearing a mask. Consequently, he tested positive for COVID-19. As such, on 8 November, the claimant informed Mrs Balvinder Kalsi, the respondent’s joint owner and director, that she’d have to remain off work until she got a test.

At first, Mrs Kalsi appeared positive, stating, “Please don’t worry… If you do have to isolate, we can work something out salary wise”. However, this changed when Mrs Jessica May, the respondent’s former operations support manager, discovered the claimant had been seeing Ms Campbell at weekends.

On 9 November, the claimant disclosed her romantic relationship with Ms Campbell to Mrs May, who, in turn, informed Mrs Kalsi. Mistakenly, Mrs Kalsi believed this contact breached the lockdown restrictions, leading her to limit contact with the claimant and instruct Mrs May to investigate.

Claimant Suspended for Gross Misconduct

Following two negative tests, the claimant was allowed to return to work on 19 November. However, upon her return, she was invited into what she described as an “ambush meeting”, where a disciplinary investigation occurred without her prior knowledge. It wasn’t until she was suspended at the meeting’s conclusion that she realised what had happened.

During the meeting, Mrs Kalsi threw a range of accusations at the claimant, including that she’d lied about living alone. As the meeting drew to a close, she said, “I’m so disappointed you deceived me Kelly… By behaving this way, you took the decision to protect my family away from me”.

Subsequently, the claimant was suspended for gross misconduct, with accusations that her behaviour and negligence fundamentally breached her contractual terms. Mrs Kalsi stated that her conduct irrevocably destroyed the trust and confidence in their employment relationship and sent her home. The claimant was then provided with a letter to attend a disciplinary hearing the following day.

Claims of Dishonesty are Refuted

Over the following weeks, the situation gradually escalated. Initially, issues with the respondent’s email system caused delays in receiving the claimant’s correspondence. As a result, the disciplinary hearing had to be repeatedly postponed.

In the interim, the claimant emailed the respondent on 23 November. She attached amended minutes from the disciplinary investigation and alleged that the news came as a shock since Mrs May had assured her before the meeting that she’d get a “slap on the wrist” at worst.

The claimant added that Mrs Kalsi’s conduct had left her self-medicating diazepam for stress and clarified her position. It appeared Mrs Kalsi’s main concern was the risk of COVID-19 exposure. Yet, while government guidelines only required employees to declare contact with individuals who’d tested positive, the claimant informed her workplace about her partner’s estranged husband, even though she’d never been in contact with him.

This information was provided voluntarily out of courtesy to Mrs Kalsi and the respondent’s workforce. As such, the claimant asserted this demonstrated “maximum transparency” and refuted the claims of her dishonesty.

Respondent’s Persistence Causes Meltdown

Unfortunately, the worst was yet to come. On 25 November, the claimant received 13 calls within 41 minutes from the respondent. Mrs May reasoned that she wanted to inform the claimant about a proposed settlement agreement she would be receiving so that it didn’t come as a shock. However, when the claimant didn’t pick up, Mrs May visited the claimant’s home unannounced to deliver the letter personally.

The day before, the claimant had informed the respondent about her ongoing mental health struggles, explaining that her GP had prescribed antidepressants and that she was still taking diazepam to manage her stress. Upon learning that Mrs May had visited her home, the claimant went into a state of shock and called her father. As he was abroad, her brother was tasked with checking her well-being. He later reported that when he called, she was “sobbing and hyperventilating and could barely speak”.

Grievance and Appeal Dismissed

“Without prejudice” discussions soon followed, but when they failed, the claimant was requested to return to work on 25 January 2021. However, the claimant submitted a grievance on the day she was due to return. This primarily comprised complaints concerning the incidents that followed her COVID-19 submission and alleged the respondent of “discriminatory and bullying treatment”.

The claimant was subsequently invited to a disciplinary hearing but explained she couldn’t attend due to poor health. As a result, she provided written submissions to aid in the grievance investigation before receiving the outcome on 12 February. At this time, she learned her grievance had been dismissed.

Consequently, the claimant appealed the outcome of her grievance on 19 February, remaining signed off unfit to work. She, again, couldn’t attend the scheduled hearing but provided a written statement like she had before. Ultimately, her appeal wasn’t upheld, with the claimant receiving this news on 5 March.

Claimant Reports Forged Signature

Before discovering the outcome of her appeal, the claimant, with her father’s assistance, reported a forgery of her signature on a loan agreement to Action Fraud. This agreement concerned a £2,000 sum the respondent had provided to the claimant when she was promoted in 2019. At the time, the claimant perceived this as a gift; however, the respondent asserted this wasn’t the case. Having no recollection of signing any such agreement, the claimant reported this to the police.

Claimant Forced to Resign

On 15 March, the claimant was invited to a welfare meeting; however, she felt this was “far too little, far too late”. She claimed the sudden concern about her health was simply a self-serving exercise to protect her employer. Since the “very thought” of direct contact with Mrs May or Mrs Kalsi filled her with anxiety, she requested to “keep to email contact only”.

With her final fit note ceasing on 10 April, the claimant resigned two days earlier, with effect from the tenth. She claimed she’d been forced to resign due to the respondent’s actions, stating, “I believe I have been singled out for such extreme victimisation… [Mrs Kalsi] felt she was entitled to know everything about me”. 

Following ACAS early conciliation, the claimant presented her employment tribunal claims on 1 May. Among other things, she claimed constructive unfair dismissal.

ET Rule Claimant was Forced to Resign

Once proceedings concluded, the tribunal looked to determine whether the claimant had been forced to resign and faced constructive dismissal. When analysing the treatment she’d endured, they found several breaches where the respondent collectively and fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

Incidents such as the hostile investigatory meeting and Mrs May’s false assurances that the claimant would face nothing more than a “slap on the wrist” were highlighted. In both scenarios, the tribunal held the claimant’s trust and confidence in the respondent was likely damaged or destroyed altogether.

The tribunal also accepted that forgery on the loan agreement had occurred, likely due to the respondent regretting making the gift, further destroying the employment relationship. While some of the respondent’s conduct may not have amounted to a breach, others did, and the collective was overwhelming, with the welfare email being the “final straw”.

As such, since the tribunal found a fundamental contract breach, they agreed the claimant would have felt forced to resign and upheld her constructive unfair dismissal claim. Following this ruling, a further hearing will be scheduled to determine her remedy.

If you have any questions or believe you were forced to resign, please reach out now. Redmans Solicitors are employment law experts with years of experience helping employees navigate their constructive dismissal claims. Should you have an eligible case, we could help you, too.

So, to find out more about how we could assist with your case: