In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Mrs Juliet Nukweye Eseinune, a Band 7 nurse in the respondent's CYP team, brought claims arising from performance management, grievance handling, redeployment, sickness-absence meetings, suspension, and the end of her employment. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and respondent witnesses and found that several of the claimant's factual assertions did not fit the contemporaneous documents or were not borne out by the evidence. It also accepted that the respondent had received repeated concerns from commissioners, parents and other professionals about the claimant's assessments and manner at panel meetings.

On the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal rejected each of the nine alleged acts or omissions said to amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the July 2018 temporary move out of the department, the April 2019 request to reconsider an assessment, the July/August 2019 complaint handling and desk move, the August and October 2019 meetings, the alleged telephone call on 12 August, the November 2019 feedback discussion, and the sickness-absence meetings were either not proved as alleged or were reasonable management steps. The tribunal held that there was no cumulative breach and no last straw, and that any arguable breach was in any event waived by the claimant's continued working and extended notice period.

The tribunal also dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim. It accepted that the claimant made a protected disclosure to the CQC on 8 May 2020 and that the respondent learned of it on 15 May 2020, but found that the suspension decision had already been set in motion on 14 May 2020 after the GOSH call and the audit of patient-record access. On the tribunal's findings, the protected disclosure did not materially influence the suspension. The tribunal further found that the claimant's resignation in December 2019 was driven by her intention to retire and her lack of job satisfaction, not by any breach by the respondent.

The pay claims succeeded only in part. The tribunal found that 51 hours of untaken holiday remained unpaid at the termination date of 5 June 2020, and that one bank holiday the claimant was scheduled to work but did not work because she was suspended was also unpaid; the respondent had paid the other two bank holidays. Those sums were not quantified in the judgment and were to be assessed later if not agreed. The overtime claim for April 2018 to August 2019 was dismissed because the tribunal found no reliable evidence that the hours were worked and considered the claim outside the primary limitation period.