Ms M Chikoto v Gain Healthcare Ltd (England and Wales : Breach of Contract) -[2024] UKET 3309904/2022- (4 November 2024)

Key Facts

Issues

• The tribunal determined whether the claimant's dismissal by Gain Healthcare Ltd was unfair under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which addresses dismissals for reasons such as whistleblowing or health and safety concerns.
• The tribunal addressed whether the claimant was subjected to detrimental treatment under section 44(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which protects employees who raise concerns about health and safety at work. The claimant alleged she was treated poorly after raising issues about poor living conditions and health risks in her accommodation.
• The tribunal evaluated whether Gain Healthcare Ltd breached the employment contract by requiring the claimant to pay £2,619 as a condition of employment, as the claimant argued this was an unfair financial burden.
• The tribunal examined whether the claimant's dismissal was unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which covers dismissals for making protected disclosures. The claimant alleged her dismissal stemmed from exposing the employer's poor working conditions.
• The tribunal concluded that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed at common law, as her summary dismissal was not justified. She was entitled to notice pay of £479.45, which was awarded as part of the judgment.
• The tribunal assessed if the claimant faced detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which relates to making protected disclosures. The claimant argued that her dismissal was a result of such disclosures about the employer's practices.

Holdings

• The claimant's dismissal was not unfair within the meaning of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
• The claimant's claim of detrimental treatment within the meaning of section 44(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not succeed.
• The claimant was not treated detrimentally within the meaning of section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
• The claimant was wrongfully dismissed; her summary dismissal was not justified at common law, and she is entitled to notice pay in the sum of £479.45.
• The claimant's claim for damages for breach of contract resulting from the respondent requiring payment of £2,619 before employment does not succeed.
• The claimant was not dismissed unfairly within the meaning of section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Remedies

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The implied term of good faith in the employment contract was considered, particularly regarding the respondent's obligations to provide habitable accommodation and act reasonably in managing the claimant's concerns. The tribunal found the respondent breached this duty by charging fees without clear justification and mishandling accommodation issues.
• The tribunal applied the burden of proof to determine whether the claimant's dismissal was justified under common law or statutory provisions. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was not influenced by the claimant's protected disclosures, as required by the legal standard.
• The tribunal applied the balance of probabilities standard to evaluate the claimant's assertions about the conditions of her accommodation and the respondent's actions. This standard was critical in determining the factual basis for the claim of wrongful dismissal.
• The tribunal used a purposive approach in interpreting statutory provisions (e.g., sections 43B and 43G of the ERA 1996) to assess whether the claimant's disclosures about health and safety conditions were protected. This approach emphasized the legislative intent to protect workers raising genuine concerns.

Precedent Name

• Hibbins v Hesters Way Neighbourhood Project
• Unite the Union v Nailard
• Sarker v South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
• Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd
• Von Goetz v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust (No. 1)
• Crossley v Faithful and Gould Holdings Ltd
• Rawlinson v Brightside Group Ltd
• Chief of Greater Manchester Police v Bailey

Cited Statute

• Employment Rights Act 1996
• Equality Act 2010

Judge Name

• Liburd
• Simon
• Hyams

Passage Text

• The claim for damages in regard to the sums which were paid by Ms Baber ... was dismissed. The problem with that argument was that it failed to take into account the fact that the sum was a pre-requisite to the contract.
• The main reason why I was dismissed by Gain Healthcare Ltd was that my sister shared the photos of the poor living conditions that I was living in on social media at the accommodation provided by them as part of my employment agreement and the poor working conditions which resulted in my illness.
• We concluded that the failure to keep the electricity supply flowing continuously at 100 Commercial Street involved a risk to the health and safety of the persons occupying those premises.