North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust

Case Summary

The case involved claims of unfair dismissal, harassment related to disability, victimisation, and unauthorised deductions from wages. The Employment Judge dismissed all claims.

The Employment Judge dismissed all of the claimant's claims following a full hearing on the merits, finding them not to be well-founded.

• •unfair dismissal
• •harassment related to disability (section 26 Equality Act 2010)
• •victimisation (section 27 Equality Act 2010)
• •unauthorised deductions from wages

Case No: 2408967/2021 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M Waluk Respondent: North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust Heard at: Manchester On: 2-5 October 2023 (and in Chambers on 15 and 16 January 2024) Before: Employment Judge Eeley Mr A Gill Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Ms A Niaz-Dickinson, counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal is not well founded and is dismissed. 2. The claimant’s complaint of harassment related to disability is not well founded and is dismissed (section 26 Equality Act 2010). 3. The claimant’s complaint of victimisation is not well founded and is dismissed (section 27 Equality Act 2010). 4. The claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is not well founded and is dismissed. 5. The claimant’s complaints of direct disability discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010) are dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. REASONS Case No: 2408967/2021 10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017 1. By a claim form presented on 7 August 2021, the claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination relating to the protected characteristics of disability, sex, race, and religion/belief. Prior to the final hearing the claims relating to sex, race and religion/belief were withdrawn. The claimant also pursued a claim for unauthorised deductions from wages. 2. The case was listed for a final hearing before a full Tribunal. One of the Tribunal Members listed to hear the case became unwell and could not attend and a replacement could not be arranged. The options available to the parties were explained and both parties signified their consent, in writing, to the case being heard by a two-person Tribunal. 3. At the outset of the hearing the list …