Claimant v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no evidence that Alan Wishart told the claimant he would not invest in training because of her age or impending retirement. The tribunal rejected the claimant's account and found the successful candidate for the PA role was older than the claimant, undermining any age discrimination claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant's failures to be appointed to roles or be promoted were based on legitimate performance and capability concerns, not disability. The tribunal rejected allegations that decisions were influenced by the claimant's disability.
The tribunal found that the respondent had not treated the claimant unfavourably because of anything arising from her disability. The tribunal found performance concerns were genuine and not related to disability-related absences or conduct.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made reasonable adjustments where appropriate and that the claimant had not demonstrated any substantial disadvantage arising from a PCP that was not addressed.
The tribunal found that conduct complained of was not related to the claimant's age and did not have the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
The tribunal found that the conduct complained of was not related to the claimant's disability and where conduct was unwanted, it was not because of disability and did not satisfy the statutory test for harassment.
The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct, even taking all matters cumulatively, did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal found the grievance outcome was reasonable and there was no repudiatory breach entitling the claimant to resign.
Because the tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed, the claim of unfair dismissal could not succeed.
The claimant's claim for notice pay failed because the tribunal found she was not dismissed and had resigned voluntarily without there being a fundamental breach of contract.
Facts
The claimant worked for the NHS trust from 2017 in various administrative and PA roles. She brought claims of age and disability discrimination arising from her work in the ER team, as PA to the Chief Nurse, and in the Patient Experience team. She alleged inadequate training, performance management concerns, and harassment. Following protected settlement discussions in May 2021, she went off sick, brought grievances, and eventually resigned on 1 July 2022, claiming constructive dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found no evidence of age or disability discrimination, concluding that the respondent's actions were based on genuine and reasonable performance concerns. The tribunal held that the claimant was not constructively dismissed as there was no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Settlement discussions were ruled inadmissible under s.111A ERA 1996.
Practical note
Protected conversations under s.111A ERA 1996 are inadmissible in unfair dismissal claims unless there is improper behaviour, and the tribunal will rigorously scrutinise claims that performance management was discriminatory where there is credible contemporaneous evidence of genuine capability concerns.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3204918/2021
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 13
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- PA to Chief Nurse and Deputy Chief Executive / Patient Experience Project Support Officer
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep