Case 1300164/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300164/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Oxley resigned on 21 August 2018 while disciplinary proceedings about his relationship with a service user were continuing. He claimed constructive unfair dismissal, breach of contract and non-payment of annual leave. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a safeguarding concern and that it was entitled to investigate and suspend him while the allegations were examined. It also found that the claimant had entered into an inappropriate friendship with a service user, had not properly disclosed that relationship, and had accessed the service user’s records on the CRIIS system on eight occasions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal; tribunal found no fundamental breach by the respondent, so the claimant was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim concerned notice/pay in lieu of notice following resignation; tribunal found no breach of contract by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim concerned alleged non-payment of annual leave entitlement on termination under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; tribunal found it was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- Aberdeen City Council v McNeill
- Croft v Consignia plc
- Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd
- Derby City Council v Marshall
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.