Claimant v The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract by the respondent. The alleged acts (on-call pressure, removal of responsibilities, demotion, delays in grievance) either did not occur as alleged or did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant was not dismissed; he resigned voluntarily.
The claim for contractual redundancy payment failed because the tribunal found no constructive dismissal. Additionally, the claimant's role continued to exist after his resignation and was filled permanently in December 2024, so there was no redundancy.
The race harassment claims were out of time (final alleged act June 2023, claim filed January 2024 after ACAS from 1-3 August 2023). Tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds given unexplained delays. On the merits, the tribunal found none of the alleged acts occurred or constituted unwanted conduct related to race. No facts established from which harassment could be inferred.
Facts
Senior estates manager at NHS Trust resigned claiming constructive dismissal after alleged demotion threats, removal of responsibilities, and race harassment between August 2022 and June 2023. He cited delays in grievance handling and various management actions by his line manager Simon Hughes. The Estates Department was chronically understaffed throughout the relevant period. Claimant went on sick leave, raised two grievances, and resigned on 1 August 2023 with three months' notice, immediately starting new NHS employment.
Decision
All claims dismissed. Tribunal found no repudiatory breach - alleged acts either did not occur or were explicable by departmental understaffing and normal management processes. Race harassment claims were out of time (final act June 2023, claim January 2024) with no just and equitable extension granted due to unexplained delays. On merits, no unwanted conduct related to race was established.
Practical note
Claimants alleging constructive dismissal must establish actual repudiatory breaches, not just subjective perceptions of poor treatment, and discrimination claims added months after filing require clear justification for time limit extensions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200254/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Strategic Head of Estates / General Manager of Estates
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No