Claimant v Barts Health NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the Claimant succeeded with his claim for constructive unfair dismissal. The breach of contract related to the underpayment of sick pay from August 2023 onwards, which the Claimant failed to raise proactively with management but which the employer also failed to investigate despite knowledge of the pay reduction.
Facts
The Claimant was employed by Barts Health NHS Trust for five years. He was underpaid sick pay from August 2023 onwards, receiving reduced or nil pay instead of the sick pay to which he was entitled. The Claimant resigned on 3 November 2023 citing this underpayment and other dissatisfactions with his treatment. He underwent a medical procedure in mid-September 2023 and had a second remote teaching job which he continued during his illness. He failed to raise the underpayment issue with his line manager Mr Biela despite knowing about it from late August, though Mr Biela also failed to investigate the pay reduction despite being alerted by payroll.
Decision
The tribunal awarded the Claimant £3,274.31 in total for constructive unfair dismissal. The award was reduced by one-third for contributory fault in failing to raise the pay issue, and the loss period was limited to three months because the tribunal found the Claimant would have resigned anyway within that period given his level of dissatisfaction and alternative employment. The tribunal also found the Claimant failed to mitigate his loss. No award was made for loss of statutory rights.
Practical note
Claimants must comply with tribunal directions on remedy evidence and proactively raise grievances about contractual breaches even when unwell, or risk significant reductions for contributory fault and restricted loss periods based on Polkey principles.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
Tribunal found the Claimant would have resigned after three months in any event due to dissatisfaction with treatment and having alternative remote teaching employment. Loss period limited to three months rather than the six months claimed.
Claimant failed to raise the issue of underpayment of pay from mid-September onwards, knowing from significantly reduced pay at end of August that he had been underpaid. However, primary responsibility was on employer and Claimant was unwell during the period.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200688/2024
- Decision date
- 19 June 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor