Claimant v The Scottish Ministers
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found that the claimant's secondment away from the injury benefit team in March 2017 was an act of detriment on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure about police injury benefits. The disclosure was a material factor (more than trivial) in the respondent's decision to move him. A reasonable worker would consider such an unwanted move to be a detriment.
The Tribunal found that the disciplinary investigation undertaken between February and May 2019 was an act of detriment on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures to Audit Scotland and the First Minister. Two of the disciplinary allegations expressly related to those disclosures. The influence of the protected disclosures on the investigation was more than trivial, passing the Fecitt test.
Facts
The claimant worked for the Scottish Public Pensions Agency and made protected disclosures about incorrect application of pension regulations between 2016 and 2018. In March 2017 he was seconded away from the injury benefit team where he had worked for 16 years. In February 2019 a disciplinary investigation was commenced, two allegations of which expressly related to his disclosures to Audit Scotland and the First Minister. He was subsequently dismissed. This was a remedy hearing following remittal from the EAT.
Decision
The Tribunal found both the secondment and the disciplinary investigation were acts of detriment on the ground of protected disclosures. The detriment claims were not time-barred as it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring them in time due to reasonable ignorance of his rights and work-related stress. The Tribunal awarded £6,250 for injury to feelings in the lower Vento band, reflecting a 12.5% uplift to account for the four-year delay since the original hearing.
Practical note
Even where detriment claims are presented out of time, a claimant's reasonable ignorance of whistleblowing detriment rights (as opposed to unfair dismissal rights), coupled with work-related stress focussed on the substantive whistleblowing concerns, can make it not reasonably practicable to claim in time.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4111836/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Employee in injury benefit team
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister