Claimant v Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board

Tribunal found no dismissal within the meaning of s.95 ERA 1996. The Claimant resigned. There was no fundamental breach of contract by the Respondent. The Respondent followed safeguarding procedures properly and offered support. The Claimant's resignation was premature and unreasonable. The claim of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Tribunal found no evidence that the Claimant was targeted or treated less favourably because of his race. Incidents in 2020, 2021, and 2022 were non-discriminatory. The suspension in August 2022 was a neutral act following safeguarding procedures. The Respondent's witnesses were credible and showed no racial bias. The Claimant was supported and valued as a team member.

Tribunal found no evidence that the Claimant was treated less favourably because of his sexual orientation. The suspension and subsequent actions were in accordance with safeguarding policies, not motivated by the Claimant's sexuality. The Respondent's witnesses did not know the Claimant's sexuality at the relevant time and acted consistently with policy.

Tribunal found the alleged incidents did not amount to harassment related to race. The Claimant's subjective perception was not objectively reasonable. For example, the alleged racial abuse by a patient in 2021 was not corroborated by witnesses. Other incidents were part of normal professional management and support, not unwanted conduct violating dignity or creating a hostile environment.

Tribunal found no harassment related to sexual orientation. The reference to the Grindr app in safeguarding referrals was necessary and appropriate, not unwanted conduct intended to harass. The Claimant's perception that this was harassment was not objectively reasonable given the context of a serious safeguarding investigation.

Tribunal accepted the letter from Equality 4 Black Nurses on 26 August 2022 was a protected act. However, the Tribunal found no causal connection between the protected act and the subsequent referrals (NMC, police, Home Office). The Respondent referred the Claimant to NMC because he resigned before internal processes concluded, not because he complained of discrimination. The referrals were in accordance with safeguarding duties.

Tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The Respondent followed proper safeguarding procedures, offered support, and acted reasonably. The Claimant's resignation on 2 September 2022 was premature and unreasonable as he would have been informed of the allegations by 5 September 2022, only 12 working days after suspension. No dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996.