Case 2220783/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Beasley v UKTV Media Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2220783/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Beasley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant worked for UKTV Media Ltd as Head of Digital Advertising from 16 June 2014. After her father died by suicide on 5 or 6 June 2023, she took bereavement leave and later returned to work, including remote working and then hybrid working. The tribunal found that she did not specifically ask her line manager, Sarah Goldman, to tell HR that the death had been by suicide, and that Ms Goldman reasonably understood the Claimant not to want that detail passed on. The Respondent also sent messages of support, offered flexible arrangements, and provided information about its counselling support and other policies.
The tribunal rejected the Claimant's case that UKTV's conduct amounted to constructive dismissal. It found that the matters relied on, taken singly or together, did not amount to a breach of contract or of the implied term of trust and confidence, and that the 7 December 2023 screening of Sister Boniface was not forced upon her: staff were told they could opt out, the reference to suicide was brief and in an historical flashback, and the tribunal accepted the Respondent's description of the material. The tribunal also found that the Claimant's conduct and demeanour after the screening did not support her case that she had been upset in the way alleged.
When the Claimant resigned on 19 January 2024, she gave several reasons, including pay, workload, house renovation plans, and the feeling that she had been let down after her father's death. The tribunal found that the earlier January correspondence did not amount to a resignation or dismissal, and that her employment ended on the expiry of her written notice on 29 March 2024. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. A separate claim for enhanced sick pay was withdrawn by the Claimant.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal held that, although the Respondent had already paid holiday accrued up to the end of January 2024 after set-off for overpaid salary, the Claimant remained entitled under her contract to 5 days' pay for unused holiday accrued during February and March 2024. The judgment did not state a cash figure for that entitlement, only that it had to be paid net of tax and NI deductions by 30 October 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for enhanced sick pay was withdrawn by the Claimant before the merits decision; the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found no breach of contract, no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and no last straw. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that the Claimant did not specifically ask for the suicide to be reported to HR and that the screening on 7 December 2023 was optional and reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the Claimant was entitled under her contract to 5 days' pay in lieu of contractual holiday accrued during February and March 2024. No sum was specified in the judgment, only that it should be paid net by 30 October 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- constructive dismissal
- fundamental and repudiatory breach
- implied term of trust and confidence
- last straw
- affirmation
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.