Case 1600523/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Chanelle Heron v Amos Nursing Home Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600523/2022
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Mason Members
- Venue
- Wales
- Panel members
- Ms L Bishop, Ms Y Neves
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Chanelle Heron
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at Wales Employment Tribunal, Cardiff, from 13 to 16 November 2023. It dismissed the complaint of sexual harassment, finding that it had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. It reached the same limitation-based conclusion for the whistleblowing detriment complaint and the victimisation complaint.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed. The judgment states that the claim was not well founded. No monetary remedy was awarded, and the written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint of sexual harassment. Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of whistleblowing detriment. Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation. Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal found it was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.