Cases2204474/2022

Claimant v West London Action For Children

28 March 2025Before Employment Judge Mr. A SpencerLondon Central

Outcome

Partly successful£2,534

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was a breakdown in working relations caused by the claimant's conduct (an inappropriate WhatsApp message and failure to respond to reasonable management requests). Despite some procedural defects, the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses for a small charity where the claimant had lost trust in management and the relationship had irretrievably broken down.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

By consent, the parties agreed that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages and the tribunal ordered payment of £1,993.90 in unpaid wages.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Dismissed earlier in the proceedings for non-compliance with Unless Orders.

Detrimentstruck out

Dismissed earlier in the proceedings for non-compliance with Unless Orders.

Facts

The claimant worked as a childcare assistant and project manager for a small charity from April 2017 until her dismissal in January 2022. After a long period on furlough during Covid, she returned in September 2021 but expressed repeated dissatisfaction with management. On 18 November 2021, after testing positive for Covid, she sent an inappropriate WhatsApp message ('what a total fucking joke') to the work group. Despite multiple attempts by the CEO to discuss the message, the claimant refused to engage or respond. A disciplinary process followed in which the claimant did not show contrition and instead attacked management, accusing them of hostility and negligence. She was dismissed for gross insubordination and breakdown of the working relationship.

Decision

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The principal reason was breakdown of working relations (SOSR) caused by the claimant's conduct - the inappropriate WhatsApp and failure to respond to reasonable management requests. Despite some procedural defects, the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses for a small charity where trust had irretrievably broken down. The claimant succeeded on her wage claim by consent and received an additional two weeks pay for the respondent's failure to provide written particulars.

Practical note

Even with some procedural imperfections, dismissal for breakdown of trust and confidence can be fair where an employee demonstrates sustained unreasonable distrust of management, refuses to engage with reasonable requests, and shows no willingness to work constructively, particularly in a small organization.

Award breakdown

Arrears of pay£1,994
Unpaid wages£1,994

Legal authorities cited

BHS v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379Lock v Cardiff Railway Co Ltd 1998 IRLR 358

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.1ERA 1996 s.98Employment Act 2002 s.38Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.207AERA 1996 s.94

Case details

Case number
2204474/2022
Decision date
28 March 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
charity
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Childcare Assistant and Project Manager
Service
5 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No