Case 3202330/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S J Hickmore v Golden Hands Home Care Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3202330/2020
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Members
- Venue
- East London
- Panel members
- Ms G McLaughlin, Mr L O'Callaghan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S J Hickmore
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that, following a May 2019 agreement, the claimant was to work her 37.5 hours over three long days only and not half days. In May 2020 the respondent offered a rota spread over five days after complaints had been made about clients on the claimant's line, then removed her from work while those complaints were investigated. The tribunal accepted that the claimant made herself available, texted about her rota, and was not offered any hours from 1 June 2020 until 7 August 2020.
The tribunal held that the main breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence were the failure to provide work or pay, the failure to keep the claimant properly informed about what was happening, and the allegation that she was acting as she did because Mrs Solas-Causapin was Filipina. It rejected other matters as independent breaches, including the investigation of client complaints, the dishonesty and financial abuse allegations, the lack of prompt notification of the investigation outcome, and the home visit to hand over letters.
On that basis the tribunal found constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It also found racial harassment after the 13 July 2020 telephone call and the email sent the same day, both of which it held were unwanted conduct related to race and had the effect of creating a hostile environment for the claimant. It further found unlawful deductions from wages for 25 May 2020 to 21 August 2020 because the claimant was ready and willing to work and there was no contractual right to suspend her without pay. A remedy hearing was listed for 14 November 2022; no compensation had yet been assessed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant resigned in response to the respondent's failure to provide work or pay from 25 May 2020, the failure to keep her properly informed, and the allegation that she was acting because Mrs Solas-Causapin was Filipina. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Racial harassment based on the 13 July 2020 telephone call and the same-day email sent in error. The tribunal found the Filipina comment and the email were unwanted conduct related to race and had the requisite effect. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages for the period 25 May 2020 to 21 August 2020. The tribunal found the claimant was ready and willing to work and the contract did not permit suspension without pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim 3201221/2020. The holiday pay and notice pay/arrears of pay claim relating to February 2020 was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal after the sums had been received. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC
- Nottinghamshire CC v Meikle
- Malik v BCCI
- Croft v Consignia plc
- Cantor Fitzgerald International v Callaghan
- Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd
- Derby City Council v Marshall
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.