Case 2500491/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J McGovern v Medsolve UK Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500491/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J McGovern
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard that Mrs McGovern brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and for unpaid wages in relation to suspension periods and a Boxing Day shift. Although the respondent argued that there had been a break in employment in 2016 to 2017 which would have defeated jurisdiction, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that her employment continued and that it therefore had jurisdiction to hear the constructive dismissal claim.
On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the Western Excavating v Sharp approach and asked whether there had been a repudiatory breach of contract by the employer. It accepted that the claimant had experienced anxiety about the police investigation, later disciplinary action and the events leading up to her resignation, but found that the respondent had acted reasonably in not placing her with vulnerable adults while the police investigation was ongoing. It also found no breach in the disciplinary process sufficient to justify resignation, noting that a final written warning was issued rather than dismissal and that the claimant did not appeal.
The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the incident on 29 December 2018 amounted to a final straw. It found that the claimant should have raised concerns or lodged a grievance if she thought she was being treated unfairly, and that the events described did not amount to a valid basis for immediate resignation. The constructive dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The wage claims were also dismissed. On pay during suspension, the tribunal found that the claimant was paid by reference to shifts worked, that the contract entitled her only to payment when she undertook shifts, and that withholding pay while she was suspended was reasonable; it also noted that any such claim would have been out of time. On the 26 December 2018 shift, the tribunal found that the claimant was offered an alternative shift after the original booking could not proceed, but she chose not to work it and went home, so no payment was due. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal first resolved a jurisdictional dispute in the claimant's favour and found, on the balance of probabilities, that her earlier employment continued so that she had the necessary qualifying service. It then held that she did not establish any significant or repudiatory breach of contract entitling her to resign. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for pay during suspension. The tribunal found the claimant's pay was shift-based, that the contract allowed payment only when undertaking shifts, and that withholding pay during suspension was reasonable; it also noted any such claim would in any event be out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for payment for the shift on 26 December 2018. The tribunal found the claimant was offered an alternative shift after the original booking could not proceed, but she chose to go home and did not perform the work, so no wages were due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp 1978 ICR 221 CA
- repudiatory breach of contract
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.