Case 1807159/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M North v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Heard: By TEAMS — 2022
- Case reference
- 1807159/2020
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr R Stead, Mr DW Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M North
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Ms North's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It dismissed her separate complaint of wrongful dismissal.
The tribunal also found that the respondent's failure to investigate her January 2019 grievance properly, and its decision to deal with the final grievance appeal on the papers, contravened the Equality Act 2010 and were acts of victimisation. The claimant's other allegations of victimisation were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the respondent's failure to investigate the claimant's January 2019 grievance properly, and its decision to deal with the final grievance appeal on the papers, contravened the Equality Act 2010 and amounted to victimisation. The judgment also states that the claimant's other allegations of victimisation were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.