Case 3322517/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dodou Alieu Bandara Ndow v Augusta Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3322517/2021
- Decision date
- 24 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Miss W. Smith, Mr S. Holford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dodou Alieu Bandara Ndow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a support worker for Augusta Care Ltd from August 2019 until his employment ended on 31 August 2021 after he gave notice. The tribunal found the claims were in time because the relevant conduct was continuing up to the end of employment. It also found there was no agreement at interview for a fixed workplace with service user TR, and that the claimant’s rota pattern, including hours above 48 per week, reflected the contract and the opt-out agreement he signed.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal accepted that 40 hours of 2019 holiday were not paid when the claimant was told he could not take the leave because of business needs, and that the respondent did not directly support him when he raised concerns about working with ST. It held those matters breached the implied term of trust and confidence, but the claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to work and pursue shifts for a long period after the events. The tribunal did not accept that the refusal of unpaid leave in July 2021 breached trust and confidence, because the claimant did not satisfy the dependency policy on the information then available to the respondent. The notice pay claim also failed because he resigned without notice and was not constructively dismissed.
On race discrimination, the tribunal rejected the allegations that the claimant was transferred from Oswald Road, allocated excessive shifts, refused holiday, or left without work after resigning, and it found the claimant was not required to isolate longer than necessary because he himself told the respondent he was quarantining for 10 days. It held that the 4-day delay in allocating work after his return from Gambia was due to poor management, not race, and that the other adverse treatment relied on was explained by policy, discretion, or the claimant’s own communications. The victimisation claim failed because, although some emails were protected acts, the tribunal found no detriment was caused by them. The disability discrimination complaint was withdrawn before the hearing. The only monetary award was £328.40 for 40 hours of unpaid 2019 holiday at £8.21 per hour.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was not constructively dismissed and had affirmed the contract by continuing to work after the earlier complaints and holiday issues. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal rejected the race discrimination claim, finding the challenged treatment was not because of race and that some of the alleged acts did not occur as alleged. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted some emails were protected acts, but found no detriment was shown to have been caused by them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded 40 hours of unpaid 2019 holiday at £8.21 per hour, totalling £328.40. | Upheld | — | £328 |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim failed because the claimant resigned without notice and the tribunal did not uphold constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | This claim was withdrawn by the claimant before the hearing and was dismissed on that basis. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £328
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew
- Mahmud v BCCI
- Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
- RDF Media Group Plc v Clements
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- United First Partners v Carreras
- Abbey National Plc v Fairbrother
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd & Anor
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- Igen Ltd v Wong
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.