Case 1305108/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. H Beasley v C M Community Care Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305108/2020
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs N Chavda, Mrs J Keene
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. H Beasley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs H Beasley brought claims of automatically unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination against C M Community Care Services Limited. The tribunal found that on 24 December 2019, during a heated discussion about Christmas and New Year shifts, AZ told the claimant to leave the office. Applying the objective approach to ambiguous words, the tribunal held that a reasonable employee would understand this to mean to leave at that time, not that employment had been terminated. The claimant resigned two days later, which the tribunal regarded as inconsistent with any prior dismissal.
The tribunal also rejected the constructive dismissal case. It found that AZ asked the claimant to leave in order to remove her from a tense situation and allow her to calm down, which had reasonable and proper cause. The tribunal held that this conduct was neither calculated nor likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, and that the events relied on, whether individually or cumulatively, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract under the Malik trust and confidence term and Western Excavating principles.
On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant had asked for a copy of her contract of employment on 24 December 2019 and that this was an assertion of a statutory right under s.104 ERA 1996. However, because there was no dismissal at all, the automatically unfair dismissal complaint failed and was dismissed.
On the race discrimination complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant did not establish facts from which it could infer that the treatment on 24 December 2019 was because of race. It rejected the comparator cases relied on, finding that CG, JM and RP were not in materially similar circumstances. Applying the burden of proof authorities, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown the required "something more" beyond her belief that she had been treated unfairly, and concluded that race played no part in AZ's decision to ask her to leave the office.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal complaint under s.104 ERA 1996 based on asking for a copy of the contract on 24 December 2019. The tribunal found that request was an assertion of the statutory right to written particulars, but held there was no actual dismissal and no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaint under s.13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was Black British, but found that being told to leave the office on 24 December 2019 was not less favourable treatment in materially similar circumstances and was not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Ltd
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Bahl v Law Society
- Sothern v Franks Charlesly & Co
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.