Case 1601304/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J. Richards v Clwyd Alyn Housing Ltd. HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601304/2020
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J. Richards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Richards worked for Clwyd Alyn Housing Ltd from 4 May 2010 as care home manager at Plas Bod Llwyd. After the regulatory framework for regulated care services came into force in 2019, Dawn Burrows became the respondent's responsible individual and the tribunal found that the management style at the home became more hands-on and direct. The claimant returned from sick leave after a planned operation in February 2019, later raised grievances, was suspended after three safeguarding incidents, was investigated and then demoted to senior care practitioner following a disciplinary process, and resigned with immediate effect on 14 February 2020 after her appeal against that sanction was rejected.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. Tribunal found the claimant resigned, was not dismissed, and that the respondent did not commit a repudiatory breach or destroy trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | TOIL claim failed. Tribunal found no contractual right to payment in lieu of accrued TOIL on termination, and the claimant had been paid for the TOIL that had been agreed by her line manager. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- Omilaju cumulative breach approach
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hosp [2018] EWCA Civ 978
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
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.