Claimant v X-Pharm Ltd t/a Touchwood Pharmacy

The tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the decision not to follow disciplinary or probationary procedures before dismissal. The respondent's decisions were based on their perception of the claimant's suitability for the role due to concerns about vaccinations in October 2023 and feedback from Mr McCarthy, combined with the claimant being in a 24-month probation period with less than two years' service. No adverse inferences arose to shift the burden of proof.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent's decision not to follow the grievance procedure after the claimant's employment ended was not because of race. Mr Dhaliwal determined it was unnecessary as the claimant was no longer employed and he did not believe any process would change the decision regarding her probation. There was no evidence of race playing any part in the decision and no prima facie case was established.

The tribunal found that the dismissal was not because of race. The respondent determined the claimant was not suitable for her role based on their perception of vaccination events in October 2023, feedback from Mr McCarthy about her conduct, and the context of difficulties at the Wise Branch. As she was in her probation period with less than two years' service, they decided to end her employment without disciplinary procedures. There was no evidence that race influenced the dismissal decision.

The tribunal found that the alleged PCP of 'not having internal policies and procedures promoting proper procedures and supplying clear guidance on preventing discrimination' was not established. The respondent had a staff handbook containing policies including an Equal Opportunities policy, grievance policy, and disciplinary policy. The PCP as framed was not made out, so the claim could not proceed.

The tribunal found the claimant did not make a protected disclosure. Although she told Mr Sehmi that Zoe Vassel was upset because she thought Mr McCarthy called her a liar, the tribunal concluded the claimant did not have a reasonable belief this was in the public interest (only one individual affected in a private meeting) or that it tended to show a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Without a protected disclosure, the detriment claim could not succeed.

As the tribunal determined the claimant had not made a protected disclosure, the whistleblowing detriment complaint could not continue. Additionally, Mr McCarthy (who allegedly carried out the detriment) had no knowledge of the alleged disclosure, and there was no evidence the comments influenced any decision-making.

The claim under s.103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found the claimant had not made a protected disclosure. Even if she had, there was no evidence that the comments made to Mr Sehmi on 24 January 2024 had any bearing on the dismissal decision, as management thought the matter between Mr McCarthy and Ms Vassel was resolved at the time.

The claim under s.12 Employment Relations Act 1999 failed because the tribunal found the claimant did not attend a 'disciplinary hearing' as defined in s.13(4). The meeting on 24 January 2024 between Mr McCarthy and Ms Vassel was an informal one-to-one meeting to resolve upset, not a prearranged disciplinary hearing that could result in formal warnings or other action. In any event, attending this meeting had no bearing on the dismissal decision.