Seamstress denied redundancy pay after 30 years with Little Sisters

Wednesday 15 January 2020

A former Little Sisters of the Poor seamstress, who claimed that the charity changed its mind after offering redundancy pay when the care home it operated in Jersey was sold to a new company, has had a claim for compensation rejected.

Maria Armstrong, who had worked in linen and laundry department of the Jeanne Jugan care home since 1988, left her role last year after more than 30 years’ continuous employment following the home’s takeover by LV Care Group.

In an application to the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal, Ms Armstrong said that she felt she had no other choice but to leave following the takeover, arguing that this amounted to unfair and wrongful dismissal for which she was owed compensation.

Pictured: The seamstress of more than three decades gave evidence before the Employment Tribunal.

Among her key claims were that Little Sisters of the poor had told her she would be entitled to redundancy pay but changed its mind, and that she was put under pressure to sign a contract with a new employer. 

The first claim was centred on information circulated in a written Q&A sheet after a meeting in which the intention to put Jeanne Jugan up for sale was announced in autumn 2018. 

In response to a question asking what would happen to employees that choose not to transfer to the new provider, the document stated: “If employees on the contracts Little Sisters have choose not to transfer to the new provider, then they will be redundant and receive redundancy pay based on their particular circumstances.”

Ms Armstrong was reportedly left “very sad when [the Little Sisters] announced they were leaving”, and expressed her wish for redundancy to the HR Director, as she did “not want to work for anyone other than the sisters”. 

She expected that redundancy pay would follow this decision, but later learned in a meeting in April 2019 that this would not be the case – despite what the Q&A form had said. 

A written response to employee questions issued at the time reinforced this view, explaining that previous discussions “took place at a different time under different circumstances before [the] Jeanne Jugan facility was placed on the market; and a redundancy payment was only one of the potential outcomes”.

The Employment Tribunal – chaired by Ms Hilary Griffin – heard that this left Ms Armstrong “very very angry”. So strong was her feeling that she was described as having “pointed her finger in [the HR Director’s] face and accused her of breaking a promise to make a redundancy payment”.

Feeling that “things had gone too far” and that the situation was “impacting [her] health”, Ms Armstrong declined to attend a final consultation meeting, and instead handed in her resignation in May. 

The Tribunal considered whether the Little Sisters of the Poor’s refusal to make a redundancy payment was a breach of contract, but concluded that it was not. 

In her judgment, Ms Griffin noted: “The Tribunal had some sympathy for the Claimant who was clearly unhappy at what she perceived to be the Respondent’s change of approach. However, it concluded that the Respondent could not destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence by applying the provisions of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.  

“Furthermore, if the Tribunal is wrong in making this finding, it also found that the Respondent had ‘reasonable and proper cause’ to refuse to pay a redundancy payment, being that the Claimant unreasonably rejected an offer of suitable alternative employment.” 

The Tribunal also dismissed an allegation by Ms Armstrong she was pressurised to sign a letter agreeing that her employment terms would transfer from Little Sisters of the Poor to the care home’s new owner. 

“Instead, the Tribunal found that the Respondent encouraged the Claimant to sign the Novation Letter because the alternative was for her to become redundant but without the benefit of a redundancy payment,” the judgment noted. 

The claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal were subsequently rejected.