Case 3204902/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Ogunlola v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204902/2021
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Members
- Panel members
- Ms P Alford, Ms M Legg
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Ogunlola
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that NHS Digital required call handlers using NHS Pathways to complete CM1 and CM2 accreditation, including a CM2 assessment, and that the claimant had CM1 but not CM2 when the respondent discovered the issue in 2021. It found that requiring her to undertake CM2 training and assessment was because of that accreditation requirement and not because of race.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed the CM2 assessment and re-sit, that the assessments were double marked, and that the re-sit was also reviewed by NHS Digital. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the model answers came from NHS Digital and that the claimant was marked appropriately. It also found that standing the claimant down from call handler duties while unaccredited was necessary because only accredited call handlers could use the NHS Pathways software.
On dismissal, the tribunal treated the claimant's case as a last-straw constructive dismissal claim based on the CM2 requirement, marking, being stood down, and the invitation to a capability hearing. It found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for each matter, that the invitation to a capability hearing was not a repudiatory breach, and that there was no cumulative breach of trust and confidence.
On wages and contract claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had received all accrued untaken holiday pay due as at 1 December 2021. It found that unsocial hours payments were not properly payable because, while stood down, the claimant had to claim them and had not done so. It also found that the claimant's resignation was better read as giving four weeks' notice to leave on 1 December 2021, so the notice pay and related further holiday pay claims failed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations concerned requiring the claimant to undertake CM2 training and assessment, alleged marking omissions or wrong marking of two assessments, and being stood down from call handler work. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant alleged express dismissal or, alternatively, constructive dismissal based on alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned alleged unpaid accrued holiday pay and alleged arrears of unsocial hours payments. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim concerned alleged notice pay, further accrued holiday pay linked to the disputed notice period, and unsocial hours pay pleaded in the alternative as breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Malik v BCCI implied term of trust and confidence
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating constructive dismissal test
- last straw doctrine
- Kaur questions
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Greg May contractual approach
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.