Case 6012206/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Julia Sas v Cardiff Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012206/2024
- Decision date
- 4 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Othen Appearances
- Venue
- By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Julia Sas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned after concerns about how the respondent handled a Violence at Work report, her grievance and grievance appeal, access to policies, and a later email from the appeal manager. The tribunal considered whether those matters, individually or cumulatively, amounted to conduct without reasonable and proper cause that destroyed or seriously damaged the implied term of trust and confidence.
The tribunal found deficiencies in the respondent's handling of matters, including that the Violence at Work investigation and grievance investigation could have been more thorough, there were delays in the grievance and appeal process, and the claimant was incorrectly sent an out-of-date policy. However, taking the matters cumulatively, the tribunal did not find that the respondent's conduct was likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant did not resign in response to a repudiatory breach of contract and was not dismissed within section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Her unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant alleged constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the basis for an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found she was not dismissed as defined by section 95 and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- band of reasonable responses
- Selkent Bus Company v Moore 1996 ICR 186
- Goold
- Hamilton
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.