The Facts

The Facts

  1. We make our findings of fact on the balance of probabilities having considered the evidence before us given orally by the witnesses and the documentary evidence within the bundle. Where there was a conflict in the evidence between the parties we preferred the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses which we found to be more credible and reliable than that of Philippa Ratcliffe and her witnesses.

 

  1. We found Philippa Ratcliffe’s evidence for the most part to be lacking in credibility and, in relation to certain factual issues, unreliable. Whilst we are not obliged to consider every single issue which illustrates this lack of credibility or unreliability, we set out in the following paragraphs examples of where Philippa Ratcliffe’s evidence fell into these categories.

 

  1. Philippa Ratcliffe complains that the Respondent’s Directors told Ms Messam that she would be taking over Philippa Ratcliffe’s role permanently. There is absolutely no evidence that this happened. Ms Messam’s evidence was that the Respondent’s Directors had been talking for some time about opening a branch to deal with London properties and Philippa Ratcliffe was well aware of this. On 31 December 2021 Miss Messam, having just been told of her promotion to Associate Director, telephoned Philippa Ratcliffe to advise her of this promotion. Her evidence was that Philippa Ratcliffe was well aware of the Respondent’s plans and that Ms Messam would be involved in running the new branch. There is not a shred of evidence that Ms Messam would take over Philippa Ratcliffe’s duties and Philippa Ratcliffe’s allegation in this regard is at best unsubstantiated conjecture and at worst made up to bolster her

 

  1. Philippa Ratcliffe also complains about being excluded from meetings. We find no evidence to support this claim. She intimates that this exclusion began after she announced her pregnancy but she received invitations to meetings as evidenced at pages 129, 174 and 175 and these invitations all post-dated the announcement of her pregnancy. Further, at page 188, Philippa Ratcliffe sent a message to a colleague saying “I haven’t even really participated in meetings. Emma is looking after everything now”. This was in July 2021. There is also evidence of Philippa Ratcliffe having to miss meetings because one of her children was ill (page 236). There is also confirmation at page 240 that Philippa Ratcliffe had asked to be taken off Heads of Teams meetings and then asked why she was not in She then attended a

 

 

meeting but at page 241 in a message to Mrs Alegre-Wood Philippa Ratcliffe said of a meeting taking place on 10 June 2021, “I’m going to jump in with Emma today and hand it over for her to take them going forward….”. Accordingly, Philippa Ratcliffe’s evidence in respect of alleged exclusion from meetings is unreliable in light of the documentary evidence in the bundle.

 

  1. Philippa Ratcliffe also complains that during her pregnancy risk assessment it was suggested that any stress she was feeling was solely down to her pregnancy. In her oral evidence she said the questions she was asked were “all related to stress”. However, in conversation with Mrs Alegre-Wood on 27 April 2021 Philippa Ratcliffe said she felt mentally overwhelmed by all of the changes brought about by being pregnant (page 222) and freely volunteered to the Risk Assessor that she was receiving counselling for anxiety and stress (page150). Philippa Ratcliffe signed the risk assessment with no comments. It seems clear to us, however, that any suggestion of stress being solely down to her pregnancy came from Philippa Ratcliffe

 

  1. Philippa Ratcliffe further alleges that on 4 October 2021 having indicated that her midwife had suggested she begin her maternity leave early, she was “marched out of the office” and denied the opportunity to continue working until the end of the week when she indicated her maternity leave essentially would begin. Philippa Ratcliffe returned to work after seeing the midwife and met with Ms Bevis. Ms Bevis then contacted Mrs Alegre-Wood and spoke to Philippa Ratcliffe again and told her to go home to work. What Philippa Ratcliffe omits to say in her statement is that it was suggested to her that she visit her GP the following day to get advice on whether she could remain at work in the office for the remainder of the week. Philippa Ratcliffe did not consult her GP and we would have thought if she felt strongly enough about being asked to work from home she would certainly have done so. Philippa Ratcliffe was very friendly with Ms Messam whose witness statement makes clear that Philippa Ratcliffe was not marched out of the office as if she was being disciplined. She was accompanied by Ms Messam who helped carry her things to her car and because she was good friends with Philippa Ratcliffe and wanted to be able to give her a hug as she left. As we mention below, we accept entirely the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses in relation to this incident.

 

  1. Another issue raised by Philippa Ratcliffe in support of her claims is that the Employee Commission Structure was changed without consultation with her whilst she was on maternity leave and this would have reduced her earnings.

 

  1. In fact, we accept the Respondent’s evidence that the change in the Commission Structure would have increased Philippa Ratcliffe’s earnings. In cross-examination she accepted that as renewals were to be added to the scheme she would have been better off and in response to a question from the Employment Judge she said, “it was conjecture on my part that I would have been worse off. It had nothing to do with my pregnancy”. This was just one example of Philippa Ratcliffe making assertions in her witness statement which did not stand up to scrutiny in cross-examination and in questions from the Tribunal. There is also significant inconsistency with the

 

 

documentary evidence before us and the contentions of Philippa Ratcliffe. At page 277 in a conversation with Mrs Alegre-Wood Philippa Ratcliffe said, “I am sorry I have not been able to stick things out longer but I have discussed sterilisation when I have the C-section so at least you know I won’t be doing this again”. On the following day 5 October 2021, Philippa Ratcliffe said, “Still processing yesterday. Just heading to physio now and should have my Doctor’s note this afternoon x”. These comments do not support Philippa Ratcliffe’s assertion that she was forced to leave work and was marched out of the office. On the following day (page 277) Mrs Alegre-Wood pointed out that Philippa Ratcliffe could opt to go on sick leave but that would mean she would receive SSP. Philippa Ratcliffe replied that, “SSP was £95.00 per week” and “I would rather start MAT leave early”. This suggests that Philippa Ratcliffe also had in mind her financial situation rather than an uncorroborated allegation of unfavourable treatment by the Respondent.

 

  1. The final example we refer to is Philippa Ratcliffe’s allegation that the Respondent refused to allow her work towards the Level 4 Fellow of the Association of Residential Lettings Qualification (FARLA) after she requested this on 29 June 2021. Philippa Ratcliffe already had the Level 3 qualification and there was no dispute between the parties that Level 4 is more demanding being a written essay based test with 6 examinations. Philippa Ratcliffe said she wished to study with Ms Messam who would also be working towards the qualification but we note Philippa Ratcliffe gave up some of her responsibilities and attendance at meetings to Ms Messam and we were unsure how she proposed to carry out work whilst holding down a job, looking after three children at home, not always being in the office at the same time as Ms Messam and also suffering from various pregnancy related medical issues. There is no evidence before us that the Respondent in the form of Mrs Alegre-Wood ever refused to allow Philippa Ratcliffe to undertake this course. At page 254 there is a conversation between Philippa Ratcliffe and Mrs Alegre-Wood where Mrs Alegre-Wood queries whether it would be better for Philippa Ratcliffe to consider the course once back from maternity leave and referred to Philippa Ratcliffe’s workload and that it might be better for Philippa Ratcliffe to take the course the following year due to everything she had on at the present She added that she wanted to be sure Philippa Ratcliffe was okay workwise without loading any more work on her. Philippa Ratcliffe replies, “Okay” with a thumbs up emoji and says that this was in response to Mrs Alegre- Wood saying she would speak to Mr Alegre-Wood about it. This is a convenient interpretation by Philippa Ratcliffe since her response was not to the reference to speaking to Mr Alegre-Wood but the reference to not wishing to overload Philippa Ratcliffe with work.

 

  1. In many other areas in relation to the issues before us, Philippa Ratcliffe’s evidence lacked credibility. We note she did not at anytime raise a grievance about any of the things of which she now complains. Her evidence was she did not have access to her contract of employment whilst on maternity leave and so did not know what the procedure was. However, in her role as a Team Leader she dealt with grievances raised by other employees and was perfectly well aware of the procedure to be followed.

 

 

  1. Philippa Ratcliffe produced two witnesses in support of her The first was Ms Olivia Aloi whose evidence we have to say we found to be totally unreliable. In essence she attempted to support Philippa Ratcliffe’s claims by saying that she herself had made requests for flexible working upon returning from maternity leave and these were dismissed without any consideration. The documents produced by the Respondent tell an entirely different story. Not only were the requests given serious consideration, the Respondent produced its letters in relation to the initial request and the appeal it granted to Ms Olvia Aloi giving explicit detail within the statutory framework as to why her request could not be granted. Indeed, in the light of the evidence produced by the Respondent to counter Ms Olvia Aloi’s allegation, we were surprised she was actually called to give evidence.

 

  1. Philippa Ratcliffe’s second witness was Ms Rebecca Hansell, a former employee who resigned after what she referred to as “unwarranted disciplinary action by the Respondent”. Ms Rebecca Hansell made a series of allegations against the Respondent’s Directors and management which were not corroborated by any documentary evidence. We gained a strong impression that the evidence was given to assist Philippa Ratcliffe and to criticise the Respondent’s Directors solely for this purpose.

 

  1. In contrast, we found the Respondent’s witnesses gave their evidence in an open and straightforward manner and answered each question put to them promptly and, we consider, honestly. They did not shirk from answering difficult questions and, unlike Philippa Ratcliffe, did not need to pause to consider the question before giving an answer. Again, unlike Philippa Ratcliffe’s evidence, the Respondent’s witnesses could rely on documentary evidence to corroborate their statements. It was also apparent to us that the Directors of the Respondent held Philippa Ratcliffe in very high regard and there was a particularly special and friendly relationship between Philippa Ratcliffe and Mrs Alegre-Wood. This was also illustrated at pages 352 and 353 of the bundle showing gifts totalling £3,750 from them to Philippa Ratcliffe, the sum of £3,000 being to assist Philippa Ratcliffe with the purchase of a house.

 

  1. In relation to the issues to be determined and having carefully considered the witness and documentary evidence before us, we find the following facts on the balance of probabilities:

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe was born on 23 March 1988. She commenced employment with the Respondent as a Lettings Co-ordinator on 20 March 2017. Essentially, the business of the Respondent is to manage property lettings for landlords. The two Directors of the Respondent, Mr and Mrs Alegre-Wood live mainly in Singapore but made fairly regular visits to the Respondent’s office in Lincoln.

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe performed well in her role and this led to her promotion to Associate Director running a team of Lettings Co-ordinators. One of those was Ms Messam with whom Philippa Ratcliffe developed a good friendship. Philippa Ratcliffe had also developed a very good relationship with Mr and Mrs Alegre-Wood and Mrs Alegre-Wood in In conversations an

 

correspondence between Philippa Ratcliffe and Mrs Alegre-Wood, the closeness of their friendship was often recorded and just one example is at page 228 in the bundle, where during a conversation, Mrs Alegre-Wood said, “Hang in there x your a super women bt yr human so take a breather if u need to ok. Yes we love u and u are a very important part of the business but first and foremost we care bout u xxx”. Philippa Ratcliffe was a divorced mother of three children the youngest being 7 years old. She had a new relationship with a former employee of the Respondent. She was living in accommodation which was not acceptable to her but did not have enough money for a deposit to buy a house. On 7 July 2020, the Respondent gave Philippa Ratcliffe

£3,000 towards a deposit for a house which was then purchased (page 353).

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe became pregnant and advised Mrs Alegre-Wood and some colleagues that she was pregnant on 19 April 2021.

 

  • The pregnancy gave rise to a number of pregnancy related issues including morning sickness, sciatica and anxiety for which she said she received counselling. She recorded her issues with morning sickness throughout May 2021 and in particular to an email (rather unhelpfully with the recipients name redacted) at page 114.

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe continued to receive invitations to morning meetings and Heads meetings. She was open with colleagues about missing meetings for various reasons connected to her pregnancy and looking after her children, two such incidents being recorded on 10 and 18 May 2021 (pages 230 and 236). During this period, Philippa Ratcliffe asked Ms Messam to take some meetings for her and asked Mrs Alegre-Wood if she could not attend meetings and if someone could cover the Heads meeting and presentation and figures which is what had led to Ms Messam doing this (page 240). On 10 June 2021 Philippa Ratcliffe confirmed to Mrs Alegre-Wood that she would join a meeting with Ms Messam and hand over to her to take the meetings going forward (page 241). At no time was Philippa Ratcliffe excluded from meetings by the Respondent and she actively encouraged Ms Messam to take over some of her duties in this regard.

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe provided her MATB1 certificate to the Respondent on 6 August 2021 and subsequently on 9 August 2021 advised that her maternity leave would commence on 26 October 2021. In line with its obligations, the Respondent carried out a maternity risk assessment during which she advised that she was suffering from pregnancy related anxiety which prompted further reasonable questions about this. Philippa Ratcliffe was given an opportunity to make her own comments at the end of the risk assessment but made none.

 

  • Both during and after the Covid lockdown the Respondent, in accordance with Government Guidelines, ran a rota for staff who would attend the office. Philippa Ratcliffe was not told she had to work from home as she

 

 

The Respondent took reasonable measures to comply with guidelines to ensure the safety of its employees. On several occasions, Philippa Ratcliffe actually asked to work from home, for example, to look after her children, and on 22 September 2021 when she said she had a suspected blood clot.

 

  • On 4 October 2021 Philippa Ratcliffe attended a morning midwife’s appointment. She returned to the office to advise Ms Bevis that her midwife had advised her to commence maternity leave early. Ms Bevis spoke to Mr and Mrs Alegre-Wood and, out of concern for Philippa Ratcliffe, Ms Bevis told Philippa Ratcliffe to go home where she could work if she wished and a further discussion would take place on the following day when Philippa Ratcliffe would have seen her GP to obtain further advice. We find it highly likely that Philippa Ratcliffe’s subsequent objection to emails sent by Ms Bevis indicating Philippa Ratcliffe’s midwife had told her to cease work immediately were prompted by Philippa Ratcliffe’s concern that this might mean she would only be in receipt of SSP as opposed to maternity Before leaving the Respondent’s office, Philippa Ratcliffe spent some time waiting for her friend, Ms Messam, to conclude a telephone conversation before leaving. She was not “marched out of the office” but merely accompanied by Ms Messam who was upset that Philippa Ratcliffe was not being given the kind of send off that had been anticipated.

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe’s colleagues confirmed that they would organise a baby shower for Philippa Ratcliffe. Despite confirming that she was to see her GP the following day for further advice, Philippa Ratcliffe has produced no evidence that she did so or, if she did, no evidence of the advice she received. Philippa Ratcliffe began her maternity leave on 8 October 2021. She attended the office for her baby shower with colleagues on 15 October 2021.

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe continued to correspond with Mrs Alegre-Wood during November in a very friendly fashion and sent pictures of her new-born baby in December which prompted expressions of happiness and joy for Philippa Ratcliffe from Mrs Alegre-Wood.

 

  • In relation to Ms Messam’s position within the Respondent Company and for the avoidance of doubt, we find that there was never an offer to Ms Messam that she would take over Philippa Ratcliffe’s role permanently. Further, there is no basis for Philippa Ratcliffe’s argument that she was not consulted about Ms Messam’s promotion to Associate Director as she was simply not entitled to be consulted.

 

  • Philippa Ratcliffe’s allegation that she would suffer financially with the introduction of the new Commission Structure is unfounded and mere conjecture on her part. Had she remained with the Respondent, she would actually have been financially better off.

 

  • We accept Ms Messam’s evidence to the Tribunal that Philippa Ratcliffe had indicated that she might not return to work and that the availability of her

 

 

mother to childmind was a significant factor in whatever decision she made.

 

  • On 10 January 2022 Philippa Ratcliffe sent the email at page 324 and 325 to the Respondent in which she resigned threatening to take her case to an Employment Tribunal if the Respondent did not within 14 days agree to pay her 12 months gross salary and provide a mutually agreed reference. Mr Alegre-Wood replied to that email on 14 January 2022 (page 325) in which he answered in detail all of the allegations contained within Philippa Ratcliffe’s resignation letter. On 4 February 2022 Philippa Ratcliffe replied to Mr Alegre- Wood saying she had not resigned (page 336). The email said, “my email of 10 January 2022 was a without prejudice email which was clearly intended as an offer to settle. Such a letter was not a resignation”.

 

Submissions

 

  1. Ms Redman produced written submissions which she spoke to in outline. Mr Gunstone made oral submissions. We do not rehearse these submissions in detail here but confirm we considered them carefully in determining the issues before us.