Hotham v Westminster Health Care Ltd [1997] UKEAT 1012_97_2811
c) failed generally to protect the appellant from harassment at work."
The circumstances are that the Industrial Tribunal held the Appellant had not been unfairly dismissed, constructive dismissal is alleged and those matters are set forth in the findings of the Tribunal.The Appellant had formed the view that a fellow member of staff was under the influence of alcohol on duty. She raised the matter with management, she also told her fellow workers. There was an investigation at the end of which her accusations were not accepted. Her fellow workers took an adverse view of her behaviour in making complaints. She found working with her colleagues a burden. She took a considerable amount of time off through sickness and she was given a warning that she could face dismissal if she was unable to attend for work and, indeed, there was a term of her contract regarding that aspect. She wanted a transfer to another department but with the sickness warning she was, to use a colloquialism "in a lame duck situation". Other departments would not accept her. On 20 January she resigned, claiming constructive dismissal.The Industrial Tribunal found that there was no substance in the claim that the employers had failed to support her NVQ training because the Appellant never involved and because of the nature of the course, she must have known that she could not have started the course and, therefore, obtained the support of the employer before the time that she resigned.In relation to the deterioration of staff relations, the Tribunal held that the employers were not responsible for the deterioration. By broadcasting her accusations she was the author of her own misfortunes and it further held that the warning related to sickness was justified.It will be seen that all these matters are matters of fact of the Tribunal. There is no reasonably arguable point of law and the matter is dismissed.