Ms K Yorke v The Secretary of State for Justice and Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust: 2307514/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s request for a reconsideration of my decision on 13 March 2025 is refused.REASONS
[2]The Claimant request a reconsideration of my decision to strike out elements of her claim on 13 March 2025. The judgment was sent to the parties on 24 March 2025 and the Claimant requested the reconsideration on 13 April 2025.[3]Under Rule 69 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (‘The Rules’) an application for reconsideration must be made within 14 days of the date the order as sent out. The request for reconsideration was received significantly out of time. However, I note that the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal on 8 April 2025 indicating her intention to request a reconsideration and asking for an extension of time to prepare the reasons. In all the circumstances I find that it would be just and reasonable to allow this extension of time. I will therefore move on to consider the substance of the application. Ground one[4]The claimant says that she was ill and unavailable to participate in “contacting for resignation within time. The time used as delay in submitting my constructive resignation should be reconsidered”. She blames the Respondents directly for her mental health breakdown.[5]Whilst delay in resignation (the actions taking place in November 23 and her resignation being in March 2024) was a factor which led to the strike out of the constructive dismissal claim, I was more influenced by the fact that I had already struck out the claims relating to the underlying allegations about the respondents’ conduct. Therefore, the Claimant had no factual basis on which to rest her constructive dismissal claim. 1 of 3 © Crown Copyright 2025[6]Whilst the Tribunal has sympathy for the Claimant, the medical evidence provided is simply a sick note and is very limited in detail. I find that it is insufficient to alter my assessment of her prospects of success.[7]As such, I find on this ground that there are no reasonable prospects of the original order being varied or set aside. Ground two[8]The Claimant says that “the key was not their property and not (a) security key so they under law do not have jurisdiction over me”. This is just a restating of her claim from the hearing. I found that the governor has authority over who is in their prison and is entitled to take into consideration a member of the medical team taking a key to the medicine cabinet home, even if it is not a security key. The Claimant makes a mere assertion that the governor’s actions must be down to racism but provides no explanation for this other than a misunderstanding of the powers of a prison governor.[9]As such, I find on this ground that there are no reasonable prospects of the original order being varied or set aside. Ground three[10]The Claimant says “Staff being honest and admitting to an error is not to be blamed or racial exclusion from work. As stated anywhere in UK can testify that error of taking ordinary keys out of work place is not a punishable offense not downgrading the error but the treatment was inhuman”.[11]With the greatest of respect to the Claimant she is entirely mistaken to suggest that you cannot be punished anywhere in the UK for taking keys out of the workplace. It is standard in many organisations for people to face disciplinary procedures for failing to follow protocol in relation to keys. In this instance the key was for a medical cabinet and it is entirely reasonable for an employer to take action for someone taking the key home.[12]Again, the claim of racism is one which rests on what appears to be an unreasonably held belief that you cannot be punished for taking keys home and therefore race must be the reason for her punishment.[13]There is absolutely no merit in this ground and I find on this ground that there are no reasonable prospects of the original order being varied or set aside. Ground Four[14]This ground is unclear in the manner in which it is drafted and difficult to follow. It once again seems to be a bare assertion of racism with no real explanation for the claim behind it. This was considered in the original decision and I find that there are no reasonable prospects of the original order being varied or set aside. Ground Five[15]The Claimant says that she ‘never made or downgraded the offence but rather came out by myself to report to the right place the only normal way of reporting. I did everything right. Anything else stated is racism inspired”. 2 of 3 © Crown Copyright 2025[16]I find that the Claimant’s entire presentation of the case has been one of trying to downplay the seriousness of taking the keys home, albeit by accident. That misunderstanding of the seriousness has led to the assumption that race was behind the decision of the respondents. I find nothing other than a mere assertion that race was a factor in the respondents’ decisions. I find nothing in the evidence and submissions presented at the prior hearing, nor in these submissions to alter my view. I find on this ground that there are no reasonable prospects of the original order being varied or set aside.[17]Having found that the complaints raised, by themselves, do not give a reasonable likelihood of the order being varied or revoked, I have then considered whether the cumulative effect of them alters that assessment. I find that it does not. I therefore refuse the application for the decision to be reconsidered.