Case 2300549/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Collinson v CG & SA Levett, t/a Hartley Coffee House & Farm Shop — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300549/2018
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard
- Venue
- Ashford
- Panel members
- Mr D Clay, Mr G Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Collinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs T Collinson worked as Deli Manager from 6 October 2015. The tribunal accepted that she suffered from agoraphobia, anxiety and depression and that the respondent knew of her condition. In 2017 she raised repeated food hygiene concerns, including chicken left unrefrigerated, the cooling procedure, raw and cooked meat being stored together, and a re-dated joint of beef. The tribunal found that these were disclosures of information made to the respondent and that they were protected disclosures.
After the claimant raised concerns on 17 October 2017 about Scotch eggs, she was suspended on full pay and later received a letter alleging potential gross misconduct. On 6 November 2017 the respondent said the two gross misconduct allegations were unsupported but listed six misconduct allegations for a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found the investigation was inadequate, that the gross misconduct allegations had been unreasonably categorised, and that there was no reasonable and proper cause for the suspension. It held that the suspension and disciplinary process, taken together, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
The claimant resigned on 10 November 2017 with notice to 25 November 2017. The tribunal found that she resigned promptly in response to the respondent's breach and was therefore constructively dismissed; because the respondent conceded that any dismissal would be unfair, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal said it did not need to decide the alternative automatic unfair dismissal issue under section 103A.
The tribunal also held that the suspension and disciplinary action were detriments on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures, and that the respondent failed to show the treatment played no more than a trivial part in those acts. On disability, the respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled, and the tribunal found that suspension and the prospect of disciplinary action placed her at a substantial disadvantage because of her mental health condition. It found that reasonable adjustments were not made. Remedy was left to a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found on a constructive dismissal route after the suspension and disciplinary process breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent conceded that if dismissal were established it would be unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant's suspension and disciplinary action were done on the ground that she had made protected disclosures about hygiene and food safety. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled. The tribunal found that suspension and the prospect of disciplinary action placed her at a substantial disadvantage because of her mental health condition, and that no reasonable adjustments were made. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Babula v Waltham Forest College reasonable-belief test
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld disclosure of information
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth information/allegation approach
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd reason for dismissal
- West Yorkshire Police v Khan causation
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester trivial-part test
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp constructive dismissal test
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC last-straw principle
- Malik v BCCI trust and confidence implied term
- Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council suspension/trust and confidence
- Environment Agency v Rowan reasonable adjustments elements
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.