And speaking of perfect working environments brings me to case of S Hamilton v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust – the very antithesis.

Mrs Hamilton was employed as a Diabetes Specialist by Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust from 2012 until her resignation on 6 January 2022.

On 28 September 2018, a disagreement occurred regarding a patient. Mrs Hamilton and Mr Nayeck, a dietitian on her team, disagreed on the appropriate response. When Mr Nayeck asked if she was questioning his competency, Mrs Hamilton confirmed she was, citing concerns over patient safety due to his advice.

Mrs Hamilton reported the incident to her line manager, Mrs Jupp, and to Dr Rodin, the Diabetes Clinical Lead. Both agreed with Mrs Hamilton, confirming that her clinical assessment had been correct. They also indicated that they were aware of Mr Nayeck’s behaviour and recognised that the incident highlighted a learning issue that needed to be addressed. They reassured Mrs Hamilton that steps would be taken to deal with the matter.

Mrs Jupp also suggested that it would be helpful if Mrs Hamilton could apologise for the tone she had used with Mr Nayeck, to which Mrs Hamilton agreed, on the understanding that Mrs Jupp and Dr Rodin would take the steps they had promised. In the following days, Mrs Hamilton apologised to Mr Nayeck.

According to Mrs Hamilton, from that point onwards, Mr Nayeck’s behaviour towards her became "noticeably dismissive." She described how he treated her differently to other members of the team, such as ignoring her morning greetings and turning away when she was presenting in meetings. Mrs Jupp recalled that, around this time, Mrs Hamilton complained to her that Mr Nayeck had stopped making tea for her, despite making it for all the other team members. Mrs Jupp said that she had raised the issue with Mr Nayeck, and, to her knowledge, it had been resolved. However, Mrs Hamilton disagreed with this account.

In April 2019, Mrs Hamilton found her book, which had gone missing, in a cupboard used to store various leaflets. This cupboard was also used by Mr Nayeck to store some of his own documents and books. Mrs Hamilton discovered that her name had been rubbed out and replaced with Mr Nayeck’s name.

On 8 May 2019, Mrs Hamilton received an email from a patient regarding advice given to him by Mr Nayeck. She forwarded the email to Mr Nayeck, expecting him to follow up with the patient directly, as he had provided the initial advice. Mr Nayeck, however, was frustrated that Mrs Hamilton didn’t respond to the patient herself. This led to a tense exchange between them, with Mrs Jupp eventually being copied in on their correspondence.

On 17 May 2019, Mrs Jupp met with Mrs Hamilton and Mr Nayeck to discuss the recent incident and explore ways to improve their working relationship. The meeting quickly became challenging. According to the meeting notes, Mr Nayeck accused Mrs Hamilton of bullying him and made personal remarks. He referred to an example where he believed he had supported her, involving a patient who had allegedly used abusive language. As the meeting continued, Mrs Hamilton became increasingly distressed, the meeting ended early, she left work and went home.

Following the meeting, Mrs Jupp sent Mrs Hamilton an email expressing concern about Mr Nayeck’s behaviour. She apologised that the meeting had "become so personal" and promised to contact HR for further advice. HR recommended that the matter be referred to formal mediation. Unfortunately, there was a significant delay before the mediation could take place, which eventually occurred on 17 December 2019.

Mrs Hamilton stated that, over the following two months, Mr Nayeck displayed “antagonistic and aggressive behaviour” towards her.

On 2 July 2020, Mr Nayeck sent an email to Dr Rodin and Mrs Jupp, informing them that he had been bullied at work by Mrs Hamilton over the preceding two years, outlining numerous complaints.

An investigation was subsequently initiated. Mrs Hamilton was informed that there was no case to answer, although aspects of her behaviour may have contributed to Mr Nayeck feeling bullied. However, she stated that there was no “discussion regarding the concerns [she] had raised… about his behaviour towards [her]”.

Mrs Hamilton submitted a formal grievance to the Trust on 16 June 2021. Her grievance, among other things, centred on the Trust’s failure to address the theft of her book and its tolerance of targeted and abusive behaviour by Mr Nayeck. The grievance was partially upheld.

On 18 August 2021, Mrs Hamilton was deemed unfit for work due to "work-related stress" by her GP. She resigned on 5 January 2022, stating in her resignation letter that this was "a breach of contract by the Trust due to a total breakdown of trust and confidence, and therefore I consider myself constructively dismissed”.

Mrs Hamilton then filed a claim for constructive unfair dismissal in the Employment Tribunal.

The ET held that Mrs Hamilton had been constructively unfairly dismissed and awarded her £41,000 in compensation. It stated that "the Management Failure and the Implementation Failure, both separately and collectively, breached the implied term of trust and confidence between the parties”. It further noted that Mrs Hamilton, who had worked for over nine years, was "brought to such a state of stress, distress, and poor health" by the Trust’s failures that she "could not take any more”.

The case highlights the importance of employers creating a safe and supportive working environment. It also serves as a cautionary tale about the need to maintain a healthy employer-employee relationship in order to avoid claims of constructive dismissal.