Case 3202319/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Manu-Gyamfi v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202319/2018
- Decision date
- 23 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Ross Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Long, Mrs S Jeary
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Manu-Gyamfi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a black African midwife, brought complaints of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, victimisation, unlawful deductions from wages, and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that many discrimination and harassment allegations were out of time and that there was no continuing act linking them. It also considered the merits and found that the respondent's managers acted for non-discriminatory reasons connected with service-user complaints, patient safety, performance management, sickness absence, return-to-work arrangements, and the claimant's refusal to undertake a developmental plan.
The tribunal found that the developmental plan was not a punishment or disciplinary sanction, but a support and performance-management measure arising from several service-user complaints and concerns about the claimant's insight and practice. It found that the grievance relied on for victimisation did not allege race discrimination and was not a protected act, and that the alleged harassment was not related to race or was not reasonably capable of having the statutory effect in context.
On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant was absent without permission for relevant periods in August, September and October 2018, except for 11 October 2018 when she attended a return to work meeting. The complaint succeeded only for that day's pay. The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the Newham University Hospital arrangements, and found that the claimant resigned after obtaining new employment with North Middlesex University Hospital.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints under section 13 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed, including because many allegations were out of time and, in any event, the tribunal found the treatment was not because of race or colour. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race under section 26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found the alleged conduct was not related to race and, where relevant, it was not reasonable for it to have the proscribed effect. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found the 2012 complaint and 3 February 2017 grievance were not protected acts; it also found the alleged treatment would not have succeeded as victimisation even if protected acts had been proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the complaint only for non-payment of wages for 11 October 2018, when the claimant attended a return to work meeting. The remaining unlawful deduction complaints for September and October 2018 were dismissed. The amount was not quantified in the judgment and was to be agreed, subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and found the claimant resigned because she had obtained new employment, not in response to a breach by the respondent. |
Legal tests applied
22 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of RUC
- Dhaliwal v Richmond Pharmacology
- Grant v HM Land Registry
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v Birmingham Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavation Limited v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International
- Bournemouth University v Buckland
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Waltham Forest LBC v Omilaju
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.