Case 2600570/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Muchererah v Rushcliffe Independent Hospitals (Kegworth) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600570/2021
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Muchererah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs E Muchererah worked for Rushcliffe Independent Hospitals (Kegworth) Ltd as Clinical Lead at Mill Lodge Hospital from 27 April 2020, subject to a six-month probationary period, and her employment ended on 7 December 2020 after a probationary review. The Tribunal preferred the Respondent's evidence where there was conflict, finding that the Claimant had a difficult relationship with colleagues, had been complained about anonymously, had criticised colleagues and doctors, and had refused a reasonable management instruction. It found the principal reason for dismissal was poor performance, including poor leadership skills and treatment of colleagues, as recorded in the termination letter.
The automatic unfair dismissal case failed because the Tribunal found that the alleged protected disclosures were not reliably proved. The Claimant gave different accounts at the preliminary hearing, in her witness statement and in oral evidence as to whether disclosures about Dr Okoko were made to Dr Singh, the Trust or Ms K Allen, and there was no reliable documentary or witness evidence that the alleged email to Richard Day about a patient restraint and sedation issue existed. The Tribunal therefore found no qualifying disclosure for the purposes of s.103A ERA 1996 and referred to Williams v Michelle Brown.
The Tribunal also rejected the s.100 health and safety dismissal case, finding that the Claimant raised on-call fatigue only once in a supervision meeting on 28 August 2020 and did not pursue the issue, and rejected the s.104 and Working Time Regulations dismissal case because she had not made it reasonably clear that she was asserting a statutory right. The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed because the Tribunal found only one overtime sheet had been submitted and approved and no agreement had been made to pay all additional hours claimed, including the alleged 223 overtime hours. The holiday pay head was withdrawn after payment had been made, and the final order also dismissed the breach of contract claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | An ordinary unfair dismissal claim had earlier been struck out because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous employment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal allegations under ss.103A, 100, 104 and 101A ERA 1996 were dismissed. The Tribunal found no reliable evidence of any qualifying protected disclosure, no dismissal for health and safety reasons, and no dismissal for asserting a relevant statutory right; it found the principal reason for dismissal was poor performance, including poor leadership and treatment of colleagues. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal rejected the overtime/non-payment claim, finding that only one overtime sheet had been submitted and approved, that there was no agreement to pay all additional hours claimed, and that the alleged 223 hours were not made out. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The final order dismissed the breach of contract head. The reasons focus mainly on the contractual overtime/payment dispute and do not set out a separate contractual award or calculation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay claim was withdrawn after the Claimant's holiday pay had been paid. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.101A ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- Williams v Michelle Brown UKEAT/0044/19
- Armstrong v Walter Scott Motors (London) Ltd EAT 766/02
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.