Claimant v I-Grow Care and Support Limited

The tribunal found that while the Claimant raised matters via WhatsApp about privacy regarding her pregnancy and a phone call about a colleague leaving a property in an unfit state, these did not constitute protected disclosures because she did not and could not reasonably believe she was acting in the public interest. The WhatsApp was a private matter and the phone call was an operational issue about day-to-day care.

The tribunal found the Claimant was not subjected to detriments (allegations about £10 accounting issue or being moved away from AG's house) because of raising the alleged protected disclosures. The accounting matter was unrelated to the disclosures, and the move was due to a complaint from the service user's sister about the Claimant's reaction to phone call timings.

The tribunal rejected multiple allegations including failure to promote, comments about maternity pay and leave, reduced hours, shouting, additional training, shadow shifts, breach of confidentiality, and denial of ante-natal appointments. The tribunal found these either did not occur (preferring the evidence of the respondent's witnesses) or were not because of pregnancy. The dismissal was due to the Claimant's reaction to a complaint from a service user's sister, not pregnancy.

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal and moving the Claimant from the service user's house was not the Claimant's absences or any request for reasonable adjustments, but rather the service user's sister's complaint and the Claimant's reaction to it at the investigation meeting on 23 February 2024.

The tribunal upheld one claim: the Respondent failed to inform the Claimant in advance about the subject matter of the investigation meeting on 23 February 2024. The Respondent knew she had bipolar and she said she was anxious and wanted to know the subject matter. It would have been reasonable to inform her. However, claims regarding scheduled breaks, restricting phone calls after 7pm, phased return, and regular schedule all failed as the tribunal found no substantial disadvantage or that requests were not for health reasons.

The allegations that Liz Appleby made various comments on 23 February 2024 (including 'who you think you are?', 'your needs do not come before the service users', 'your problems are not our problems') were denied by Liz Appleby in her witness statement and she was not challenged on them. The tribunal found Liz Appleby to be truthful and rejected the Claimant's version of events.

The Claimant's notice period was 1 week. The tribunal found she worked more than 37.5 hours during her notice period and was paid for those hours, so she was owed nothing in respect of notice pay.