Case 2302713/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Emelita Hill v C & P Limited trading as Kimberley Residential Home — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302713/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Mr D Newlyn, Mr S Corkerton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Emelita Hill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a care assistant until her dismissal on 4 May 2022. The respondent said dismissal was for conduct after concluding that she had been responsible for conduct toward residents including shaking them awake, being rude or offensive, and roughly pulling clothes over one resident's head. The tribunal found the dismissal on conduct grounds was both substantively and procedurally fair.
The tribunal found that the dismissal and earlier complaints about the disciplinary process were not acts of race discrimination or discrimination arising from disability, and that although the claimant's grievance included a protected act, the dismissal was not victimisation. It also found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures, that the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice because the conduct amounted to a fundamental breach, and that the final wage deduction related to advance holiday was not unlawful.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant's dismissal on grounds of conduct was both substantively and procedurally fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant did not make protected disclosures and dismissed the complaints of automatically unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the complaint of discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Although the claimant's grievance included a protected act, the tribunal found her dismissal was not an act of victimisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the dismissal was not in breach of contract and dismissed the other breach of contract complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management Limited v Geduld [2010] IRLR 38
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 846
- public interest test
- balance of probabilities
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.