Case 1601148/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Marcelo v Powys Teaching Health Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601148/2019
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mrs J Beard, Mrs M Walters
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Marcelo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr A Marcelo's claims against Powys Teaching Health Board at Cardiff over several days in July 2022. The judgment lists claims for direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, victimisation, protected disclosure detriment, and unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal recorded that all of those claims failed and were dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but it does not set out further factual findings or any remedy because no claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to a protected disclosure detriment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was brought pursuant to sections 94 and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.