Case 1305917/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gray-Jones (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305917/2020
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell On
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Gray-Jones (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Dawn Clay had worked for the Diocese of Coventry Multi-Academy Trust since 1 November 2004 as a Level 2 Teaching Assistant at St Nicholas Church of England Academy. After an accident at work on 6 September 2019, she was absent on sick leave. The tribunal preferred the evidence of Mrs Thorpe and Ms Marshall where it conflicted with the claimant's account, and found the claimant's evidence inconsistent with contemporaneous documents.
On 26 September 2019 Mrs Thorpe telephoned the claimant to seek further information about the nature of her injuries and her prolonged absence, because the GP fit note only recorded injury at work and did not explain the injury itself. The tribunal found Mrs Thorpe did not instruct the claimant to return to work and was entitled to make enquiries. It held that allowing Mrs Hooks to hear the call on speakerphone was at most discourteous and did not amount to a serious breach of trust, particularly because Mrs Hooks had a legitimate role in absence management.
The tribunal also found that the grievance raised on 10 January 2020 was not disregarded and was not determined prematurely by Mrs Salter. It was taken forward through an independent grievance process, with invitations to meetings before Mrs Carvell and later Mrs Nash. The occupational health report dated 11 December 2019 said there were no long-term obstacles to return to work and that meetings with management were appropriate, and the tribunal found it was proper to move the claimant to Stage II of the sickness absence procedure because there was no basis to expect a return to work within the foreseeable future.
The claimant resigned on 28 February 2020 before the grievance process and absence-management process had concluded. The tribunal held that none of the matters complained of, individually or cumulatively, amounted to breaches of contract, so there was no constructive dismissal. Because the claimant was not dismissed, her unfair dismissal claim also failed, and there was no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found there was no breach of contract, so there could be no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The unpaid notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach and no dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharpe
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- Woods v WM Car Services
- Malik v BCCI
- Buckland objective test
- Omilaju final straw principle
- Wisniewski adverse inference
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.