Claimant v The members of the Executive Committee at the relevant time of the unincorporated association known as 'Samphire'
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the sole reason for the Claimant's dismissal was her conduct, not the making of protected disclosures. The trustees had genuine concerns about the Claimant's behaviour towards staff and her combative approach which was separable from her whistleblowing. The tribunal found the Trustees welcomed and accepted the Claimant's disclosures but dismissed her for conduct reasons.
All 17 detriment allegations failed. Most failed because either the factual matters alleged were not made out, or they pre-dated the protected disclosures. For detriments that did occur after protected disclosures, the tribunal found they were not done on the ground of the protected disclosures, applying the separability principle (Kong). The tribunal accepted witnesses' evidence that actions were motivated by genuine conduct concerns, not the fact of whistleblowing.
The tribunal found objectively that the Claimant committed a repudiatory breach of her contract of employment through bullying, treating a colleague in an aggressive and intimidating manner, and a pattern of combative behaviour, resistance to management, and refusal to cooperate with trustees. This amounted to a fundamental breach going to the heart of the contract, justifying summary dismissal.
The claim for NJC pay award arrears failed because the Claimant did not satisfy the tribunal that post-employment NJC awards were 'properly payable' under her contract. The contract referenced NJC rates but did not clearly entitle her to awards agreed after termination. The TOIL claim failed as the Claimant never particularised hours or any contractual entitlement to payment on termination.
The Claimant asserted she took no holiday and was owed accrued pay. However, the bundle contained a payslip showing £1,850.94 holiday pay was paid to her on 21 July 2022. The Claimant provided no explanation as to what was incorrect about this payment and did not discharge the burden of proving she was owed more.
Facts
The Claimant was employed as Director of a small charity from January 2022. She raised governance concerns about payments to trustees and co-option procedures. In May 2022 she made a whistleblowing report. Staff, particularly the Finance Manager, complained about the Claimant's bullying and intimidating behaviour. The trustees decided to dismiss her for gross misconduct, including threatening behaviour towards staff and resistance to management, summarily dismissing her on 12 July 2022.
Decision
The tribunal found only two of five averred communications were protected disclosures, both made in late April/May 2022. All claims failed. The tribunal found the dismissal was solely for conduct reasons, not whistleblowing. The trustees genuinely believed staff would leave due to the Claimant's behaviour, risking the charity's survival. The tribunal found the Claimant committed repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal through bullying, intimidation and resistance to management. All detriment allegations failed, mainly because they pre-dated disclosures or were not causally linked.
Practical note
A whistleblower can still be fairly and lawfully dismissed for conduct where the tribunal finds the employer welcomed the disclosures but could not tolerate the manner in which concerns were raised or the employee's subsequent behaviour towards colleagues and management—the separability principle applies.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303582/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Director
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No