Case 4105478/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member Watt Tribunal Member Lithgow Mrs R Kral v Represented by Mr W McParland Solicitor Nuffield Health — 2024
- Case reference
- 4105478/2023
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster Tribunal
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Watt, Tribunal Member Lithgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Watt Tribunal Member Lithgow Mrs R Kral
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant, a Polish housekeeper at the respondent's Edinburgh clinic, did not resign during her private conversation with JDP on 14 April 2023. It accepted her evidence that she was only saying she was looking for another job and asking for a reference, and found that she later told JDP on 8 May 2023 that she had decided not to leave after all. On 11 May 2023 SB handed her a letter purporting to accept a verbal resignation said to have been given on 14 April 2023; the claimant immediately denied that she had resigned and confirmed that position again in her email of 14 May 2023. Her employment ended on 31 May 2023.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant had been dismissed by the respondent on 11 May 2023. It rejected the respondent's case that the claimant had resigned and held that, in any event, the respondent had not properly pleaded a fair reason for dismissal in its ET3. The tribunal further held that, even if some other substantial reason had been in issue, the respondent had not shown that it acted reasonably under section 98(4) ERA 1996: it did not ask for written notice, did not timeously acknowledge the supposed resignation, and did not take steps to clarify the misunderstanding once the issue became apparent.
On indirect race discrimination, the tribunal found that the respondent had a practice of accepting oral resignations. It held that this put Polish employees and/or those whose first language was not English at a particular disadvantage, because resignation is a significant step and the risk of misunderstanding is greater where English is not the employee's first language. The tribunal found that the claimant was placed at that disadvantage when her 14 April 2023 discussion was misinterpreted as a resignation. No justification was advanced, so the claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded £8,463.43 for unfair dismissal, made up of a basic award of £2,239.74 and a compensatory award of £6,223.69, with the compensatory element ceasing when the claimant obtained NHS employment on 25 September 2023. For indirect race discrimination, it awarded £11,500 for injury to feelings, described as the lower end of the middle Vento band, plus £1,025.86 interest. The complaints of wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages were no longer insisted upon and were dismissed following withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was dismissed on 11 May 2023, not that she resigned on 14 April 2023. Award comprised a basic award of £2,239.74 and a compensatory award of £6,223.69; the prescribed element was £5,482.29 and the excess was £2,981.14. | Upheld | — | £8,463 |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination succeeded. The tribunal awarded £11,500 for injury to feelings plus £1,025.86 interest from 11 May 2023. | Upheld | Race | £11,500 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claimant no longer insisted on this complaint; it was dismissed following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant no longer insisted on this complaint; it was dismissed following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,989
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,240
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,224
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.19 EqA 2010
- s.23 EqA 2010
- R (JFS) v Governing Body of JFS
- Essop v Home Office; Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Gary Lewis v Dow Silicones UK Ltd
- Taylor v Secretary of State for Justice
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.