Case 2303518/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303518/2019
- Decision date
- 1 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms S Goldthorpe, Mr A Adolphus
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who worked on the MAX project in the University of Kent's PSSRU, raised a grievance on 8 August 2018 about management of the project, her workload, her health, and the way colleagues were treated. The tribunal found that the grievance process was not wholly adverse to her: it upheld one part, namely that she had a high workload and had become unwell, and at the January 2019 outcome meeting the respondent proposed supportive steps including a possible change in line management, mediation, protected development time, a mentor, and confidentiality measures. The grievance appeal heard on 28 March 2019 was not upheld.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment complaints under s47B ERA 1996. The tribunal held that, apart from the personal reference point, the complaints were out of time and that the reference complaint was also out of time because the failure was treated as a one-off act. In any event, it found the alleged disclosures were not made as qualifying disclosures in the way alleged, the claimant did not subjectively believe at the relevant time that she was making protected disclosures in the public interest, and causation was not made out. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996. The tribunal held the claim was out of time and, alternatively, failed because the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures as alleged and did not resign in response to the alleged detriments or disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal / constructive dismissal. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract, held that any delay in leaving waived any earlier breach, and found the resignation was more likely linked to the end of sick pay and failed exit negotiations than to any repudiatory breach by the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- Williams v Michelle Brown
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chestertons v Nurmohamed
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- Marshall Specialist Vehicles Ltd v Osborne
- Ikejiaku v British Institute of Technology Ltd
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
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.