Mrs Y Muzadzi-Matika v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust — 2024

The Tribunal found that the claimant’s employment as a social worker ended with her resignation on 16 April 2021 after three sets of matters: the 2019 disciplinary process, the referral of concerns about private DOLS work to the anti-fraud team, and the 2021 safeguarding and disciplinary process concerning service user SUA. It found the respondent had genuine and objectively grounded reasons for each process. In relation to the 2019 disciplinary, the Tribunal found the investigation arose from concerns about missed visits, inaccurate diary entries, and case recording issues, and that the respondent’s scrutiny of current and then closed cases was incremental and prompted by those concerns rather than race.

On the race discrimination and harassment claims, the Tribunal held that most Equality Act complaints were out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also stated that, if it had jurisdiction over those complaints, they would still fail on the merits. The in-time complaints, centred on the April 2021 fraud-related allegation and the alleged adverse information given to recruiters, were also dismissed. The Tribunal found the referral to the anti-fraud team followed reasonable suspicions linked to undeclared private work and the claimant’s prior disciplinary history, and it rejected the claimant’s case that a white colleague was in a materially similar position. It also found no evidence that the respondent falsely or maliciously told recruiters not to employ the claimant, and held that the wording proposed for references and the referral to Social Work England were true, accurate and fair.

On constructive dismissal, the Tribunal concluded that none of the respondent’s acts, viewed individually or cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found the 2021 safeguarding and fraud investigations were not contrived and had an objective basis, and that they had not reached foregone conclusions. The Tribunal considered that the claimant resigned because of the pressure she felt from the situation rather than because the respondent had committed a fundamental breach of contract.