Claimant v Change, Grow, Live
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant to be fundamentally dishonest and had fabricated allegations. The claimant did not establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The tribunal found that the conduct of the respondent had nothing whatsoever to do with the claimant's race. The respondent dismissed the claimant due to poor performance on prescription work (60-70% of her role) and behaviour inconsistent with the respondent's values, following multiple probation extensions and support plans.
The tribunal found that even where conduct may have been unwanted by the claimant, it was unrelated to her race. Many allegations were fabricated or not established on the facts. The tribunal found the respondent to be a caring and supportive employer that tried very hard to assist the claimant to perform at the required standard and to consider her behaviours towards others. None of the conduct found to have occurred related to the claimant's race.
The tribunal found that the claimant was paid one week's notice pay in lieu in accordance with her contractual entitlement and the probation policy which permitted payments in lieu of notice. The claimant was unable to establish that she had been wrongfully dismissed and had no positive case. The claim for wrongful dismissal/notice pay is not well founded.
Facts
The claimant, a black Afro-Caribbean woman, was employed for 9 months as a PHE administrator for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation charity. From early in her employment, concerns were raised about her slow prescription processing (taking 45-60 minutes instead of 10-15 minutes), mistakes in her work, and her behaviour towards colleagues including being rude and inflicting strong views on others. Her probation was extended multiple times with action plans and support. She made numerous complaints about colleagues which were investigated but not upheld. She was ultimately dismissed for poor performance and behaviour inconsistent with the respondent's values.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the claimant to be fundamentally dishonest and to have fabricated allegations. The tribunal found that the respondent was a caring and supportive employer that tried very hard to assist the claimant, and that the dismissal was due to legitimate performance and conduct concerns, with no hint of race discrimination. The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £20,000 in costs due to her unreasonable conduct in bringing and conducting the proceedings, including fabricating allegations, repeatedly failing to comply with tribunal orders, and hostile behaviour during the hearing.
Practical note
Even where a self-represented claimant is judged less harshly than represented parties, fabrication of allegations, persistent unreasonable conduct, and repeated failure to comply with tribunal orders will result in a substantial costs award up to the maximum £20,000.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308908/2022
- Decision date
- 18 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 12
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- PHE SPOC (Public Health England Single Point of Contact) Administrator
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No