No constructive dismissal following a resignation when the claimant was questioned about attempting to take clients from the respondent. Useful guidance on how NI Tribunals react to AI written submissions.

The claimant and respondent were friends. The claimant was working in the respondent’s clinic for three days per week from July 2023 until October 2024. The claimant resigned in September 2024. The claimant alleged that there had been a frosty relationship after she had asked for holidays.  There was a meeting in September 2024 in which the claimant asked about the process for holidays, pension and tips.  The respondent also raised the issue of the claimant’s work and the fact that there had not been as much over the Summer period.  After the meeting the claimant texted a client stating that she was trying to get more clients for sugaring (a cosmetic process undertaken by the claimant for the respondent) at home.

The catalyst of the termination was when the respondent reviewed the CCTV footage from 25th September 2024. The claimant was saying that she wanted to work for herself, the quietness was pushing her from the clinic and that she was not going to have a day off for a whole week (this is despite the claimant only working three days per week).  The respondent asked for the iPhone and iPad that had been issued to the claimant and could see that there had been message to clients stating that she could do the work at home on her own account and undercut the respondent’s prices.  The contract of employment stated that the employee will not, directly or indirectly, engage or participate in other business activities that the employer reasonably determines to be in conflict with the interests of the employer.

The claimant resigned and brought a claim for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages relating to holiday pay and pension contributions.

The Tribunal explained that it was for the claimant to prove a breach of contract of sufficient seriousness that it justified the resignation. This was not shown. Furthermore, it was not shown that there was a series of events culminating in the last straw.  As a result, it was a resignation and not a dismissal. There was a total award of £3,352.96 made in relation to unpaid wages, unpaid notice pay, unpaid holidays, tips and pension contributions.

As an aside, the Tribunal made some useful remarks in relation to the use of generative AI for the purpose of generating submissions to the Tribunal.  The claimant sought to argue that less weight should be given to the respondent’s statement as they ‘were not her words’.  The Tribunal stated that:

‘To be absolutely clear, the fact that the respondent used AI to assist her in setting out her statement did not adversely affect our view of her evidence.’

This provides some useful guidance in terms of weight to be attached when Generative AI has been used to assist in the making of the statements.

This case is demonstrable of a falling out between friends who turned into work colleagues.  It related to an attempt to take clients followed by a resignation and issues with unpaid wages and holiday pay.  However, one of the key learning points may be the Tribunal’s attitude to the use of AI and that it did not affect the weight attached to the statement.  This is a sensible decision considering that in using it, it would be for the individual using it to stand over what it has generated and ultimately what they have submitted.   If there are issues with what it has created, then it would fall for that party to stand over or to be cognisant of in terms of how it may be questioned or treated at the Tribunal.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.