Ms N Bodis v Lindfield Christian Care Home Ltd: 2302653/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 2021 |
| Date | 08 December 2021 |
| Citation | 2302653/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 22 December 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case number 2302653/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms N. Bodis
Respondents: Lindfield Christian Care Home Ltd
Heard by: London South Heard on: 8 to 12
November 2021.
Chambers 08 December 2021.
Before: Employment Judge T R Smith
Members Mr R. Shaw
Mr K. Murphy
Representation
Claimant: Mr R. Kohanzad ( counsel)
Respondent: Mr P.Starvevic (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1.The claimant’s complaints of a failure to make reasonable adjustments, firstly
by failing to notify her of the matters to be discussed at an investigative meeting
on 25 February 2019 and secondly by failing to allow her to be accompanied at
the same meeting are well-founded and the tribunal declares accordingly. The
Case number 2302653/2019
2
residue of the claimant’s complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments
are not well founded and are dismissed.
2.The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is
dismissed.
3.The claimant’s complaint of discrimination arising from disability is not well
founded and is dismissed.
4.The claimant’s complaints of direct race and /or disability discrimination are
not well founded and are dismissed.
5.The claimant’s complaints of harassment are not well-founded and are
dismissed
6.The claimant’s complaint of wrongful dismissal is not well-founded and is
dismissed
REASONS
Preliminary matters
1.On the first day Mr Kohanzad sought leave to introduce a supplemental
statement and additional documentation on behalf of the claimant.
2.Whilst Mr Starcevic contended they had little, if any, relevance he accepted he
was not prejudiced by their introduction and for the oral reasons given, the
tribunal granted Mr Kohanzad’s application.
3.On the third day of the hearing Mr Starcevic sought leave to introduce one
document to which Mr Kohanzad did not object and for the oral reasons given
this was added to the master bundle.
4.Given it was conceded that the claimant was a disabled person the tribunal
raised with Mr Kohanzad whether any specific adjustments were required for the
claimant, and was informed that other than breaks, if she became distressed,
no further adjustment was required. Regular breaks were provided.
5.The tribunal drew to the partys attention that having accepted their invitation to
read the statements, the tribunal had noted the claimant made reference to a
without prejudice financial offer which was highly likely to be inadmissible
Case number 2302653/2019
3
evidence. The tribunal considered it was able to discount that information from
its minds and both counsel signified in those circumstances they were content
for the tribunal continue.
The Evidence
6.The tribunal had before it two statements from the Claimant.
7.For the Respondents the Tribunal had statements from:-
• Mrs P. Craen, registered manager.
• Mrs S. Jones, deputy manager.
• Mr J. Nurse, trustee and investigating officer.
• Mr I Johnson, trustee and one of the two determining officers at the disciplinary
hearing.
• Mrs K. Taylor chair of trustees.
8.The tribunal heard oral evidence from all the authors of the above statements.
9.The tribunal had before it a master bundle, which eventually consisted of 787
pages. A reference to a document is a reference to the master bundle, unless
otherwise indicated.
10.The tribunal also had the claimant’s supplemental bundle which numbered 24
pages. A reference to a document in that bundle is preceded by the letter “C”.
The parties were reminded that the tribunal would only concentrate its attention
on documents that it was specifically taken too.
The Issues.
11.Following discussions between the tribunal and the parties a finalised list of
issues was agreed, which the tribunal set out below.
12.It was also agreed with the parties that due to the shortness of time the
tribunal would determine liability only and not remedy and the expression
remedy included both the issue of contribution and any relevant Polkey
deduction.
Unfair dismissal.
13.What was the reason for the dismissal? In particular, was the reason for the
dismissal the potentially fair reason of conduct, as the respondent contended?
To continue reading
Request your trial