Case 2302744/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Constantin (representing himself) For the v Viktorija Kanasonkaite (HR Officer and employee of the Respondent) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302744/2018
- Decision date
- 11 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs S V MacDonald, Ms S Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Constantin (representing himself) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a support worker at Ballater House from 26 March 2018. The case arose from an incident on 18 May 2018 involving resident JS and staff member Mr Ajani. The tribunal found that at a meeting with Registered Manager Mr Adeyemo on 22 May 2018 the claimant gave only the brief account recorded in a written statement, and did not disclose that Mr Ajani had punched JS. It rejected the claimant's evidence that he had given a fuller oral account and found that the statement accurately reflected what he said at that meeting.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant later made protected disclosures, including his report to the CQC on 4 June 2018, his account to Mr Phillips on 8 June 2018, and his reports to the police. However, it found that the respondent dismissed him on 21 June 2018 because he had failed to give a full disclosure of the incident when first interviewed, which the respondent treated as misconduct and a breach of duty of candour. The tribunal found that this was the true reason for dismissal and that there was no basis for the case that he was dismissed because he had made a protected disclosure.
The direct race discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal found there was no evidence that race affected the dismissal and no facts from which the burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010 could shift to the respondent. The appeal heard by Ms Karki on 12 July 2018 was unsuccessful and the dismissal was upheld on 21 July 2018. No monetary award was made because both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant had made a protected disclosure, but held that the respondent dismissed him because he had not given a full disclosure of the incident on 22 May 2018, not because he made the protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the dismissal and no facts from which the burden of proof under s.136 EqA 2010 could shift to the respondent. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43F ERA 1996
- s.43G ERA 1996
- s.43H ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
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.