Mr S Niscoveanu v Cardiff Central Sport and Recreation Ltd t/a Cardiff Central Youth Club — 2020

The tribunal dismissed all three claims brought by Mr S Niscoveanu against Cardiff Central Sport and Recreation Ltd t/a Cardiff Central Youth Club: constructive dismissal, unpaid wages and racial harassment. It found that the Respondent had gathered a trail of safeguarding and coaching concerns about the Claimant, including allegations relating to his treatment of gymnasts and the loss of boys from the squad, and that those concerns justified investigation. The tribunal accepted that the Respondent should have informed the Claimant of the suspension before Welsh Gymnastics did, but found that this was the only breach of the implied term of trust and confidence it identified.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the Claimant did not resign in response to that suspension point alone and had waived any breach by not resigning immediately. It rejected the pleaded allegations of demotion, bullying, public discussion of allegations, failure to pay correct wages during suspension, disclosure to Welsh Gymnastics before telling him, and alleged mistreatment of him and his family. The tribunal also found there was no identifiable last straw and no extant fundamental breach when the Claimant resigned on 27 December 2017, before the Respondent had heard his response at an investigatory meeting.

On the race harassment claim, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis but did not find the alleged comments were made as pleaded. It concluded that the audio recording from the 6 November 2017 meeting did not support the Claimant's account that Mr Hine said he was 'not in Romania any more' and that he ought to have changed by now. The tribunal accepted that Mr Hine's references to coaching methods in Romania and the UK related to technique and did not amount to racial harassment within section 26 Equality Act 2010.

On wages, the tribunal found the Claimant's contract provided for a 22-hour week and that the boys' coaching work paid at rate 2 was the contractual entitlement. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that work paid at the other rates was additional and not guaranteed under the contract, so the claim for unpaid wages was not well founded. The tribunal therefore dismissed the case in full and recommended that the Respondent adopt a clear disciplinary procedure in line with the ACAS Code of Practice.