Ms S Sikpa v Black County Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: 1303915/2018

Judgment Date23 April 2021
Citation1303915/2018
Published date06 May 2021
CourtEmployment Tribunal
Subject MatterUnfair Dismissal
Case Number 1303915/2018
Type V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondent
Ms S Sikpa Black County
Partnership NHS
Foundation Trust
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
(RESERVED DECISION)
HELD AT Birmingham ON 1 4 March 2021
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GASKELL MEMBERS: Ms J Malatesta
Mr P Wilkinson
Representation
For the Claimant: Ms E Lanlehin (Counsel)
For Respondent: Ms G Roberts (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:
1 Pursuant to Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the
claimants claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2 The respondent did not, at any time material to this claim, act towards the
claimant in contravention of Section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The
claimant’s complaint of direct race discrimination, pursuant to Section 120
of that Act, is dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1 The claimant in this case is Ms Sarah Sikpa who was employed by the
respondent, Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, as Counselling
Psychologist, until her dismissal on 11 May 2018. The date of the
commencement of the claimants employment with the respondent is a matter of
dispute between the parties to be determined by the tribunal. The respondent
admits that the claimant was dismissed on 11 May 2018. The reason given by
the respondent for the claimants dismissal was that her licence to practice as a
Psychologist had been suspended by the Health & Care Professions Council
Case Number 1303915/2018
Type V
2
(HCPC); and that this was a substantial reason pursuant to Section 98(1) of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).
2 Following her dismissal, by a claim form presented to the tribunal on 21
August 2018, the claimant brings claims for unfair dismissal; direct race
discrimination; and breach of contract. The claimant asserts in the claim form that
her employment with the respondent commenced on 12 February 2015 and that,
therefore, by the time of her dismissal on 11 May 2018, she had the two-years
time service required to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The claim for breach of
contract was withdrawn at a Preliminary Hearing conducted by Employment
Judge Britton on 29 May 2019.
3 In response to the claim, the respondent asserts that the tribunal has no
jurisdiction to hear the claim for unfair dismissal as its case is that the claimants
employment did not commence until 1 November 2016 - and that, accordingly, at
the time of her dismissal on 11 May 2018, the claimant did not have two-years
service. The respondent further asserts that the claimant was dismissed for a
substantial reason and that the dismissal was fair. Finally it is the respondents
case that the claim for race discrimination is wholly without foundation.
4 In simple terms therefore, the issues for determination by the tribunal are
as follows: -
(a) Was the claimant time-served to enable her to bring a claim for unfair
dismissal pursuant to Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
(ERA)?
(b) If so, was the claimants dismissal fair or unfair by reference to the
framework set out in Sections 94 & 98 ERA?
(c) Was the respondents decision to put the claimant through an investigation
and dismissal process; and ultimately to dismiss her, tainted by race
discrimination?
At this stage, the tribunal has only considered matters relating to questions of
liability. If the claimant were to succeed with any aspect of her case, remedy
would be dealt with separately.
The Evidence
5 In the race discrimination claim, the burden was upon the claimant to
establish before the tribunal facts from which the tribunal might properly infer that
race discrimination had occurred. In the unfair dismissal claim, the burden was
upon the claimant to establish that she was time-served. If she was able to
discharge these burdens, then the burdens would transfer to the respondent to
prove the reason for the claimants dismissal and that it was a potentially fair

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT