Claimant v London Borough of Redbridge
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent conceded the claim for 1.5 days unpaid accrued holiday entitlement. This was admitted at the hearing and the tribunal upheld the claim.
Tribunal found the claimant made protected disclosures on 20 and 21 July 2021 regarding TUPE/Ofsted risks. However, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the non-renewal of the fixed term contract was due to performance concerns (fewer cases solved, slower style of work, difficult working relationships) and not the protected disclosures.
The tribunal examined 16 specific allegations of less favourable treatment on grounds of race. In each case, the tribunal found either no less favourable treatment occurred, or where it did (e.g. late provision of contract), a hypothetical white comparator would have been treated the same way. The tribunal did not find race played any part in the treatment.
Claims under Fixed-term Employees Regulations 2002 failed. The tribunal found that where less favourable treatment occurred (e.g. late contract provision, failure to pay holiday pay), fixed-term status was not the reason. Many allegations involved both fixed-term and permanent employees being treated the same way.
Blacklisting claims under Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 failed. The tribunal found no evidence of any prohibited blacklist existing or the claimant being on such a list. The claimant did not put this allegation to the respondent's witness.
Facts
The claimant, a black British fixed-term HR Business Consultant at a local authority, raised concerns about TUPE/Ofsted compliance in July 2021. Her fixed-term contract was not renewed and ended 30 September 2021. She brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing), race discrimination (16 specific allegations), fixed-term employee detriment, and blacklisting. She was not provided with a contract until August 2021. She was part of a collective grievance about pay grading. The respondent failed to pay 1.5 days accrued holiday pay on termination.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant made protected disclosures but that these were not the reason for non-renewal of her contract, which was due to performance concerns. All race discrimination claims failed — where less favourable treatment occurred, it was not because of race. Fixed-term employee and blacklisting claims also failed. The only successful claim was for 1.5 days unpaid holiday pay, which the respondent conceded.
Practical note
A litigant in person claimant brought multiple claims but succeeded only on a conceded holiday pay claim; the tribunal found protected disclosures were made but not causative of dismissal, and that alleged discriminatory treatment had non-discriminatory explanations, demonstrating the high evidential burden in establishing causation in whistleblowing dismissals and proving discriminatory treatment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200207/2022
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- HR Business Consultant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No