Case 1402662/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ryan McNaught, Friend For the v Ms B Varney, Operations Director — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402662/2018
- Decision date
- 28 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ryan McNaught, Friend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Sarah Clough worked as a Senior Health Care Assistant at Rivermead View after transferring to the respondent under TUPE. She raised written concerns in December 2017 and January 2018 about MRSA information sharing, staff conduct following a resident incident, underpayment after completing advanced medication training, and a collapsed stair lift. She was then suspended after the respondent discovered derogatory text messages and concerns about the care of resident EW, and she was dismissed for gross misconduct with effect from 16 March 2018.
The tribunal found that the claimant had made four protected public interest disclosures within ss.43B and 43C ERA 1996, but accepted Ms Varney's evidence that those disclosures were not known to her when she decided to dismiss and were not part of the dismissal decision. The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was gross misconduct, not the disclosures, and that Mr Clarkson refused to process the appeal because it was out of time rather than because of any protected disclosure. The unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was therefore dismissed.
The holiday pay claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that there was no written agreement permitting carry-over of untaken holiday from the 2017 holiday year and that, for the period from 1 January 2018 to 16 March 2018, the respondent had already paid the claimant for 37.28 hours of accrued holiday entitlement in her final pay. On that basis, no accrued but untaken holiday pay remained due at termination.
The tribunal upheld two unlawful deduction from wages claims. The first was the conceded omission of one week's pay, being 33 hours at £9.50 per hour, totalling £313.50. The second related to the claimant's advanced medication qualification: the tribunal preferred her evidence that the respondent had received the certificate and found she should have been paid £9.50 per hour from 13 April 2017 until 31 December 2017, rather than £8.50 per hour. It assessed that underpayment at £1,610.00, bringing the total award to £1,923.50.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant alleged dismissal was because she had made protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted she had made four protected public interest disclosures, but found the dismissal was for gross misconduct and that those disclosures played no part in the decision to dismiss or in the refusal to process her late appeal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found no accrued but untaken holiday was due on termination. It held there was no written agreement allowing carry-over of unused holiday from the 2017 holiday year, and noted that 37.28 hours of accrued holiday for the 2018 period had already been paid in the final pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This was the conceded omission of one week's pay, calculated as 33 hours at £9.50 per hour. The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum of £313.50. | Upheld | — | £314 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant had completed the advanced medication training and had sent the relevant certificate to the respondent, so she should have been paid £9.50 per hour from 13 April 2017 to 31 December 2017 rather than £8.50 per hour. It assessed the underpayment at £1,610.00. | Upheld | — | £1,610 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,924
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- public interest test
- reasonable belief test
- principal reason test
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.