Claimant v University College Birmingham

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Paul Massiah did not tell the claimant that her employment was unsustainable due to her childcare commitments on 23 November 2023. The tribunal found the claimant's evidence internally inconsistent and less credible than the respondent's witnesses. The tribunal found it more likely that Massiah spoke to the claimant legitimately about her repeated lateness (five times in one month) rather than about her status as a mother.

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Paul Massiah did not tell the claimant that her employment was unsustainable due to her childcare commitments on 23 November 2023. The tribunal preferred the respondent's account that Massiah spoke to the claimant about her repeated lateness for work, which was a legitimate management concern. The claimant's evidence was found to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility.

The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Sangeeta Ram did not make fun of the claimant's accent or make the alleged comment on or around 6 November 2023. The claimant's allegations were inconsistent across time and contradicted by a credible witness (Pooja Kochhar). The claimant's evidence that she spoke to Garrett Edwards on 6 November was undermined by his unchallenged evidence that he was away in Hong Kong between 2-16 November 2023. The tribunal found the claimant's factual allegations did not meet the standard of proof required.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent did not commit any of the acts that the claimant alleged were breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant's email of 11 December 2023 was found to be a confirmation of resignation effective 18 January 2024. The claimant did not show good cause to resign.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned by giving notice of termination in her email of 11 December 2023, which defeats her claim for notice pay. The claimant was contractually entitled to one week's notice during her 12-month probationary period, not three months as she claimed. The claimant gave notice herself, so the respondent was not required to pay notice pay.

The unfair dismissal claim was struck out by Employment Judge Othen on 3 May 2024 because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service as required by section 108 ERA 1996, and she did not provide an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out within the given timeframe. This strike out is subject to an ongoing appeal to the EAT.