Case 3200228/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Pierre v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2017
- Case reference
- 3200228/2019
- Decision date
- 25 January 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Ross Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Long, Mr D Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Pierre
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Maternity Assistant and resigned with immediate effect on 11 October 2018. She complained of constructive unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal rejected her allegation that there had been a conspiracy against her, finding instead that different managers made separate decisions at different times for the management reasons they gave.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that none of the matters relied on breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It found reasonable and proper cause for the grievance appeal arrangements, the handling of the later grievance letter, the rescheduling of the occupational health case conference, the conduct of the sickness absence process, the use of the claimant's personal email address, and the steps taken about payslips. It found the claimant's resignation was caused by her sense of grievance about removal from the Community Team and mainly by a new bus driver job offer, and that she was not dismissed.
On race discrimination, the tribunal found that several complaints were out of time and did not form part of a continuing act. It also found on the merits that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment or primary facts from which discrimination because of race or colour could be inferred, and that the respondent had given accepted explanations for the treatment complained of.
On victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant's complaints in December 2013 and January 2017 were protected acts. However, it found no evidence that the alleged detriments were because of those protected acts, and found that some of the matters relied on were not detriments when assessed objectively.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, no course of conduct amounting to such a breach, and no last straw. It found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found allegations 2(a)-(e) were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also addressed the merits and found no less favourable treatment and no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted protected acts on 30 December 2013 and 25 January 2017, but found no causal link between those acts and the alleged detriments, and found several alleged matters were not detriments. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
27 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavation Limited v Sharp
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International
- Woods v Wm Car Services (Peterborough) Limited
- Morrow v Safeway Stores
- Bournemouth University v Buckland
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Waltham Forest LBC v Omilaju
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon
- Nagarajan
- Igen v Wong
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Hendricks
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.