Case 3300908/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ravinder Cheema v Workers Educational Association Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3300908/2021
- Decision date
- 1 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr A Scott, Mr R Clifton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ravinder Cheema
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Ravinder Cheema worked for Workers Educational Association Ltd as an Education Coordinator from 11 June 2018 and resigned on 23 November 2020. The tribunal found that the relationship with her line manager, Sabina Trowbridge, was strained and that some of the claimant’s complaints reflected genuine performance and workload concerns rather than discrimination. It also found that the respondent failed to give clear formal confirmation of the claimant’s move to a 0.5 FTE arrangement from 1 August 2019, which the tribunal described as a failure to confirm the obvious about the terms of employment.
On the constructive dismissal issue, the tribunal held that the lack of clarity about whether the claimant was in a true job share amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence around August 2019. However, it found that the claimant affirmed that breach because by September 2019 the practical position was clear and she chose to remain in employment for over a year. The tribunal also found that later matters, including Ms Trowbridge’s occasional failure to answer calls and Ms June Diegan’s conduct at the 3 February 2020 meeting, did not amount to a further fundamental breach or a last straw. As a result, the claimant was not dismissed and the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed.
The tribunal’s race discrimination findings were also adverse to the claimant. It held that the treatment it found proved was not because of race, that the claimant was treated in the same way as her white colleague Joe Carter on the job-share issue, and that there were no facts from which race discrimination could properly be inferred. It therefore dismissed the direct discrimination claim. Applying the section 26 EqA test, the tribunal accepted that some conduct was unwanted but held that it was not related to race, so the harassment claim was dismissed as well. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant relied on a constructive dismissal case, but the tribunal held that the limited breach it found over the unclear 0.5 FTE/job-share arrangement was affirmed because she continued in employment, and that the later February 2020 incidents were not a further fundamental breach or a last straw. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Because the tribunal found there was no dismissal, the associated notice pay claim also failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found that the proven treatment, including the job-share confusion, unanswered calls, and the 3 February 2020 meeting, was not because of race and that there were no facts from which race discrimination could properly be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted that some conduct was unwanted, but held that the conduct it found proved did not relate to race and therefore did not meet the section 26 EqA test. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- Malik and Mahmud v BCCI
- Frenkel Topping Limited v King
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- Field v Steve Pye and Co (KL) Ltd
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.