JCW

[Constructive Dismissal – pregnancy / work-from-home arrangement / employer conduct amounting to breach of trust and confidence] Iris acted as counsel for the Employee/Claimant in this case. This was a reference under section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 arising from the Claimant’s allegation that she was constructively dismissed. The Claimant commenced employment with the Company as an Assistant Office Administrator. During the COVID-19 surge, the Company’s employees worked from home, and later attended the office on rotation. While pregnant and initially unvaccinated, the Claimant’s doctor advised her to work from home for the remainder of her pregnancy to minimize COVID-19 exposure. The Industrial Court found that the Company had agreed to this WFH arrangement for the duration of pregnancy, but later reneged and required office attendance. After the Claimant conveyed her doctor’s written advice, she was asked to resign, her access to work email/IT resources was blocked, and she was removed from the Company’s WhatsApp group. The Claimant, through solicitors, issued a complaint letter seeking clarification, and the Company replied by maintaining she remained an employee. The Claimant claimed constructive dismissal. The Court restated the established principles on constructive dismissal, including that the proper inquiry is whether the employer committed a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract or evinced an intention not to be bound, and that where dismissal is disputed, the burden lies on the employee to prove dismissal. On the facts, the Industrial Court found the Company had employed tactics designed to force the Claimant out, and that reneging on the agreed WFH arrangement (especially in light of the doctor’s advice), coupled with cutting off work access and pressuring resignation, amounted to a breach of mutual trust and confidence and a fundamental breach of the employment contract. The Court also drew adverse weight from the Company’s failure to call key personnel involved in communications with the Claimant (particularly her immediate superior), and rejected the Company’s assertion that the Claimant had abandoned her employment. Accordingly, the Court held that the Claimant was constructively dismissed without just cause or excuse. Reinstatement was found unsuitable (among others because the Claimant obtained new employment), and the Court awarded backwages of 9 months and compensation in lieu of reinstatement of 2 months (less statutory deductions, if any).