Case 1600728/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Letherby v Abraham Nursing Homes Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600728/2021
- Decision date
- 17 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mr P Charles, Mrs J Beard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Letherby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss K Letherby was employed by Abraham Nursing Homes Ltd as a senior care assistant and had returned part-time after maternity leave on 18 April 2020. She resigned with immediate effect on 5 May 2021 after disciplinary proceedings; a part-time worker less-favourable-treatment allegation raised in the further and better particulars was withdrawn at the hearing.
The tribunal identified five alleged disclosures in the grievance email sent to Mr Zaher Sheikh on 30 December 2020. It held that the complaint about a lack of communication and the allegation about Claire Webber being on her phone after OT's fall were not qualifying disclosures, but the disclosures about resident KW, the Covid-related staff isolation issue, and Christmas Day staffing and care concerns were qualifying disclosures. It found that the claimant reasonably believed those disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show risks to health and safety and breaches of legal obligation, and that later disclosures to Care Inspectorate Wales, the Local Health Board and safeguarding in January 2021 were protected under s43G ERA 1996.
The tribunal found four detriments: suspension on 13 January 2021, the request for consent to access medical records on 22 January 2021, the handling of the grievance and investigation, and the disciplinary process. It held that the suspension lacked a proper basis, the medical-record request was unreasonable, the grievance was not handled in accordance with the ACAS Code, and the 5 May 2021 disciplinary hearing was unprofessional, biased and belittling. The tribunal also drew adverse inferences from the respondent's failure to disclose key documents and from Mr Sheikh's evidence.
Those detriments were materially influenced by the protected disclosures, and the same conduct cumulatively breached trust and confidence so that the claimant was constructively dismissed when she resigned on 5 May 2021. The tribunal upheld both automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 and ordinary unfair dismissal, found no bad faith, no contributory conduct and no Polkey reduction, and awarded £2,360.60 basic award and £3,216.15 compensatory award, plus £16,875 for injury to feelings. The compensatory award comprised £2,575.20 lost wages to 28 July 2021, £33.60 pension loss and £250 for loss of statutory rights. No interest was awarded and recoupment provisions applied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | A less-favourable-treatment claim raised in the further and better particulars was withdrawn at the hearing and then dismissed by the tribunal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal upheld the detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996, finding that four detriments were materially influenced by protected disclosures. Injury to feelings was assessed at £15,000 before the 12.5% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £16,875 |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 was upheld because the protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. The dismissal award was not separately split from the ordinary unfair dismissal finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal was upheld. The tribunal found the claimant had been constructively dismissed by repudiatory breaches of trust and confidence and that the dismissal procedure was unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,452
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,361
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,216
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.43B ERA 1996 qualifying disclosure
- Cavendish Munro v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir
- International Petroleum Ltd v Osipov / Timis v Osipov
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Vento guidelines
- Slade & Hamilton v Biggs
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
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.