Case 1308078/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Sisodia v Birmingham Crisis Centre — 2025
- Case reference
- 1308078/2023
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kight
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms L Clark, Ms S Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Sisodia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Sisodia worked for Birmingham Crisis Centre as a Finance Officer from January 2022 on a salary of £21,000, with £500 increments in the first two years. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had genuine concerns about her payroll and petty cash performance by January 2023, but found that by 2 March 2023 Mr Fleming had already decided the claimant should not remain in post and that her finance duties could be outsourced. The tribunal also found that when the claimant met trustees on 14 March 2023, they had only just learned of Mr Fleming's plan and were not party to it.
The tribunal held that the claimant was constructively dismissed. It found that the respondent unilaterally changed her duties so that, on her return to work on 17 July 2023, much of her role had been removed without meaningful consultation. It also found that the letter handed to her on 10 August 2023, which proposed settlement terms, incorrectly stated that conduct, attendance and performance concerns had already been discussed on 14 March 2023 and gave her seven days to consider the offer. Taken together, the duty changes and the 10 August letter were a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, with the letter treated as the last straw.
The tribunal found that breach was an effective cause of the claimant's resignation on 25 August 2023 and that she had not affirmed the contract by engaging in settlement discussions. It therefore concluded that she was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to notice pay, although the judgment does not state the amount of that payment.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal accepted that the claimant made protected disclosures on 6 March 2023, 14 March 2023 and 22 June 2023, but not on 24 March 2023. It found that the alleged detriments relied on by the claimant, including being put at risk of redundancy, taking paid leave, the change in duties, colleagues allegedly avoiding her, exclusion from a party, and the 10 August letter, were either not proved to have happened as alleged or were not materially influenced by the protected disclosures. The s.47B detriment claim and the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed, but held that the protected disclosures were not the principal reason for the breach leading to resignation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The s.47B detriment claim failed. The tribunal found disclosures on 6 March 2023, 14 March 2023 and 22 June 2023 were protected disclosures, but the 24 March 2023 text was not, and it was not satisfied that the alleged detriments were materially influenced by the disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found constructive dismissal and therefore wrongful dismissal. The judgment records entitlement to notice pay, but does not quantify the amount. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
19 references- Western Excavating (fundamental breach)
- Malik v BCCI (trust and confidence)
- Omilaju v London Borough of Waltham Forest (last straw)
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (cumulative effect)
- Abbycars (effective cause)
- Chindove v William Morrison Supermarkets plc (affirmation)
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro v Geduld (information disclosure)
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Blackbay Ventures v Gahir
- Boulding v Land Securities Trillium
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC (detriment)
- s.47B ERA 1996
- Osipov (burden/inferences)
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg v Ferguson (arising from)
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester (material influence)
- s.103A 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.