Case 1303387/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Stephanie Powell v Lifeways Community Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303387/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smith. In
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Stephanie Powell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned after a grievance had been raised against her by another employee and after the respondent issued her with an informal verbal warning. The tribunal found that the respondent had provided relevant training or that the claimant was in any event aware of the correct procedure, and that the informal warning was within the respondent's remit and did not amount to a fundamental or repudiatory breach of trust and confidence.
The tribunal did not accept several matters relied on by the claimant as having formed part of her reason for resigning, including alleged comments by a manager, complaints about recruitment calls, contact with management, and a number of issues first raised in her witness statement. It found that an accidental disclosure about the grievance through Teams and calendar settings was an innocent mistake, was apologised for, and was not capable, either alone or cumulatively, of destroying or seriously damaging mutual trust and confidence.
The tribunal found that the respondent's handling of the claimant's own grievance did not support the constructive dismissal claim. It accepted that any delay in delivering the grievance outcome did not cause material prejudice and did not amount to conduct meeting the relevant threshold. It also found that the claimant had secured better paid employment and that this, together with her dissatisfaction with the informal warning and rejected complaints, explained her resignation.
On the bonus claim, the tribunal found the bonus scheme was discretionary and expressly provided that no payment would be made if the employee was under notice on the payment date. As the claimant resigned on 28 March 2022 and the payment was due in April 2022 while she was serving notice, she was not entitled to the bonus payment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment described the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal and dismissed it because the claimant did not establish a repudiatory breach entitling her to resign. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The bonus complaint was pleaded in the alternative as breach of contract or unauthorised deduction of wages; the tribunal found the claimant was not entitled to the discretionary bonus. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The bonus complaint was pleaded in the alternative as breach of contract or unauthorised deduction of wages; the tribunal found the claimant was not entitled to the discretionary bonus. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Malik test
- Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose [2014] IRLR 8
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation [2010] IRLR 445
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2005] IRLR 35
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] IRLR 833
- Section 13 Employment Rights Act 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.