Case 2502181/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Chatfield v The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2502181/2020
- Decision date
- 9 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Chatfield
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Chatfield started work for The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in April 2019 as an assistant directorate accountant. After working from home during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic and returning to the office on a rota, she made a flexible working request in late August and early September 2020 to change her working days and to work from home on those days. The tribunal accepted that there had been an informal mid-August 2020 discussion about her move to Milton Keynes and that the 24 September 2020 meeting covered both flexible working and her change of address.
The tribunal held that the flexible working request was dealt with in a reasonable manner. It found that the respondent considered the application, met the claimant, accepted the request to change working days, refused permanent homeworking on grounds including detrimental impact on performance, and gave her a right of appeal. It also found that the claimant's 29 September 2020 email should ultimately have been treated as a grievance once informal clarification failed, and that the 30 September 2020 meeting was one at which she should have been allowed to be accompanied. The tribunal did not uphold the complaint about the 7 October 2020 meeting, which it found was an operational discussion about work arrangements and the claimant's imminent move.
The complaint about failure to permit accompaniment succeeded and the tribunal awarded one week's wages of £353.07. The constructive automatic unfair dismissal claim failed. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it had cited, the tribunal found that the alleged acts, taken individually or together, did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract, that there was no bullying, harassment, or malicious conduct as alleged, and that the claimant did not resign in response to a repudiatory breach. The tribunal found instead that she resigned because she did not get the working arrangements she wanted, so the principal reason for dismissal was not her section 80F application or any related grievance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under sections 10 to 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 about the right to be accompanied. The tribunal held the 30 September 2020 meeting should have been treated as a grievance meeting for which accompaniment should have been allowed; it did not uphold the complaint in relation to the 7 October 2020 meeting. | Upheld | — | £353 |
| Flexible working | Complaint under sections 80F to 80H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the respondent dealt with the request reasonably, met the claimant, accepted the change to working days, refused the homeworking element on permissible grounds, and offered a right of appeal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Pleadings were framed as constructive automatic unfair dismissal under section 104C of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the alleged breaches did not amount to a fundamental breach and that the claimant resigned because she did not obtain the working arrangements she wanted, not because of the statutory application or grievance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £353
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999
- s.11 Employment Relations Act 1999
- s.80F Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.80G Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.104C Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharpe
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Tullett Prebon Plc v BGC Brokers LP
- Abbycars v Ford
- Berriman v Delabole Slate Limited
- Price v Surrey County Council
- Wightman v CPS Interiors Limited
- ACAS Code of Practice on handling flexible working requests
- Bournemouth University v Buckland
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.