Case 2601600/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Price v Mundy Church of England VC Junior School and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601600/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs K Price
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs K Price was employed by Derbyshire County Council as a teacher at Mundy Church of England VC Junior School from 1 September 2020. She resigned with effect from 31 August 2021 after a period of sickness absence and disagreement about her sick pay entitlement. She claimed that she had been forced to resign because she had been misinformed about sick pay and that this amounted to automatic unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right.
Employment Judge Butler found that the claimant had not asserted an infringement of a statutory right. The tribunal accepted that she repeatedly sought clarification of her entitlement to sick pay, but held that this was not the same as alleging that the respondents had failed to pay her or were refusing to pay her. The claimant also accepted in evidence that there was no documentary evidence that she had asserted a statutory right, and her witness statement was treated as addressing clarification of entitlement rather than an alleged infringement.
The tribunal further held that, even if there had been such an assertion, the respondents had not committed a fundamental breach of contract. There had been confusion about the claimant's sick pay position, but the tribunal accepted that the school had relied on HR advice and had clarified the position to her by February 2021. The judge found that the mistaken information did not amount to a repudiatory breach.
The tribunal also found that the claimant did not resign in response to sick pay issues. On the evidence, she decided to resign rather than face a competency process on her return to work. The tribunal relied on the contemporaneous emails and meetings, including the claimant's later references to a possible termination package and her statement that she wanted no further action in relation to how she said she had been treated under the Equality Act 2010. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996; the tribunal treated the case as turning on whether the claimant had asserted a statutory right and, if so, whether her resignation amounted to constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
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.