Case 8001555/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Reay v , solicitor Lothian Health Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001555/2024
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Reay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Reay worked as a chaplain at the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People from April 2007 until his resignation took effect in April 2024. The case arose after a 27 June 2023 Telegraph enquiry about Pride-related decorations in the Spiritual Care sanctuary. The tribunal found that the respondent replied to the journalist before properly discussing the matter with the claimant, that no meaningful investigation was carried out into the background to the decorations, and that the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to comment on or help shape the response.
The tribunal held that this handling of the media enquiry breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It accepted the claimant’s evidence that he had autonomy over the sanctuary and had discussed Pride-related decoration in relevant group meetings, and it rejected the suggestion that he was blameworthy for the media coverage. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not take steps to assess or mitigate the impact on the claimant of being identified in national press coverage, including follow-on online commentary and safety concerns.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned in response to that breach and had not affirmed it by waiting around nine months before resigning. It accepted that he had not returned to work, that there had been no serious discussion about a return, and that he had been focusing on his mental health and safety. It therefore concluded that the claimant had been constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair.
At remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £17,500 based on the claimant’s age, 17 years’ service, and gross weekly pay of £886.54. It rejected an award for loss of earnings because the claimant’s later part-time role meant his full-time equivalent annual pay was higher than his NHS Lothian salary at termination, but it awarded £500 for loss of statutory rights. The total award was £18,000.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent’s handling of the June 2023 media enquiry breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It held that the claimant resigned in response and had not affirmed the breach by waiting until March 2024 to resign. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the constructive dismissal was unfair. It found that the respondent had not established a potentially fair reason for dismissal or a fair procedure in all the circumstances. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,000
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £17,500
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Tolson v Governing Board of Mixenden Community School
- Nelson v Renfrewshire Council
- Courtaulds Northern Textiles Ltd v Andrew
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Sawar v SKF UK Ltd
- Frenkel Topping Ltd v King
- Weathersfield Ltd v Sargent
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire Council
- Abbycars (West Hornden) Ltd v Ford
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Chindove v William Morrison Supermarkets plc
- GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
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.