Claimant v Funeral Services Limited t/a Co-Op Funeralcare

Although the claimant made protected disclosures regarding alleged data breach, the tribunal found that she did not suffer detriments on the grounds of making those disclosures. The respondent's actions were motivated by other legitimate reasons unconnected to the whistleblowing.

Three alleged detriments were claimed in connection with protected disclosures. The tribunal found either that no detriment occurred, or that the actions taken were not on the grounds that the claimant made protected disclosures but for other legitimate operational reasons.

The tribunal found that none of the eight alleged breaches, either individually or cumulatively, amounted to a breach of mutual trust and confidence. In any event, the claimant resigned not because of any breach but to avoid an imminent disciplinary hearing which could have resulted in dismissal for gross misconduct.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed for making protected disclosures. The reason for resignation was the impending disciplinary process for alleged misconduct, not any protected disclosure.

The tribunal found that the claimant could not establish primary facts to show that alleged unfavourable treatment was 'because of' her disability. Key allegations either did not occur or were motivated by legitimate operational reasons unconnected to her type-2 diabetes.

Of six alleged provisions, criteria or practices, only one was established. However, this did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled colleagues, as the respondent would have applied the same approach to any colleague in similar circumstances regardless of disability status.

The tribunal found that the alleged conduct either did not occur, or where it did occur, was not 'related to' the protected characteristic of disability but was instead related to legitimate management of disciplinary and absence procedures applicable to all employees.