Claimant v The Winchester Diocesan Board of Finance
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew the protected disclosure complaints (detriment and dismissal for making protected disclosures) at the start of the hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant did make three protected acts (verbal allegation on 18 January 2023, written informal grievance 14 February 2023, formal grievance 9 May 2023). However, the tribunal found that where alleged detriments occurred, they were not done because the claimant had done the protected acts. The dismissal was for gross misconduct relating to undisclosed secondary employment and attending a business event while signed off sick, not because of the protected acts.
Facts
The claimant was employed as Assistant to the Finance Director from December 2021. She was involved in a grievance against the Finance Director who then left. After returning from secondment in November 2022, tensions arose with colleagues and her line manager Mark Teahan over attendance patterns, job title, and tasks. On 18 January 2023 she told Teahan colleagues were hostile to her because of her race. She subsequently raised informal and formal grievances. She was invited to a disciplinary investigation in May 2023 concerning undisclosed secondary employment (sauce business, English teaching) and attending a business event while signed off sick. She was dismissed for gross misconduct in October 2023. She brought claims of whistleblowing detriment/dismissal (withdrawn at hearing) and victimisation.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant made three protected acts under the Equality Act but that the alleged detriments either did not occur as alleged or, where they did occur, were not done because of the protected acts. The dismissal was for gross misconduct (failure to fully disclose secondary employment and attending a business event while on sick leave), not because of the protected acts. The victimisation claim therefore failed and was dismissed.
Practical note
Even where protected acts are established, a claimant must prove each alleged detriment occurred and was materially influenced by the protected act; legitimate conduct issues can constitute valid reasons for dismissal unconnected to protected acts.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1406290/2023
- Decision date
- 29 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Assistant to the Finance Director
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No