Case 2200928/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A George v Drs Athos, Beyzade, Brown, Chung, DeSouza and Nichol (t/a Clerkenwell Medical Practice) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200928/2019
- Decision date
- 23 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Grewal
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Clark, Mr T Harrington-Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A George
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked at the Clerkenwell Medical Practice from July 2016 as a receptionist/administrator. The tribunal accepted that Ms Estabrook's management style was loud and direct and that the working environment in the small office was noisy and not ideal, but held that those general conditions did not of themselves amount to a breach of trust and confidence. It also accepted that on 9 March 2018 Ms Estabrook reacted unacceptably and swore at the claimant in front of others, which the tribunal regarded as humiliating, and that a nickname had been used for the claimant by colleagues, although she did not complain about it and continued working.
The claimant relied on the events of 26 October 2018, when she was told that high-priority workflows should have been dealt with earlier and left work after the exchange. The tribunal found that Ms Estabrook's conduct on that occasion was not unreasonable or blameworthy in context, although her anger may have been conveyed in her tone. It held that the March incident, the nickname and the October incident, taken together, still did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found that the claimant had decided to look for another job after the October incident and, in any event, had continued working until March 2019.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that the claimant's reference in her 21 January 2019 grievance to a delayed urine-dip task for a child was not a qualifying disclosure under section 43B(1) ERA 1996. It found that she raised the matter as part of a grievance about how she was treated, not because she believed it disclosed a public-interest health and safety issue or a legal breach. The tribunal further found that the alleged detriments were not caused by any protected disclosure. Both the whistleblowing detriment complaint and the constructive unfair dismissal complaint were therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the reference in the 21 January 2019 grievance to the unactioned urine-dip task for a child discharged from hospital was not a qualifying disclosure under section 43B(1) ERA 1996. It found the claimant raised the matter as part of her complaint about treatment by Ms Estabrook, not in the public interest, and that the alleged detriments were not caused by any protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found there was no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that the claimant did not resign in response to any such breach. It also said that, had there been a breach, she would have affirmed the contract by continuing to work until 1 March 2019 while looking for another job. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- LB of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.43B(1) ERA 1996
- s.47B(1) ERA 1996
- s.103A 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.