Claimant v Surrey County Council
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found the claimant did not make the protected disclosures she alleged on 21 or 22 September 2023 regarding child safety concerns. She instead complained about being left alone. As no protected disclosure was made, the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA for whistleblowing failed. The tribunal found the dismissal was due to a complete breakdown in working relationships with two teachers (Ms Wade and Ms Chapman) and the claimant's unprofessional conduct in meetings, not because of any disclosure.
Tribunal found the claimant did not make a protected disclosure on 21 or 22 September 2023. Without a protected disclosure, the claim of detriment under s47B ERA must fail. The tribunal also found none of the alleged detriments (shouting, belittling, being informed of probation, pressure/intimidation) were related to any concerns the claimant raised about child dismissal, but were responses to legitimate performance and relationship issues raised by other staff.
Withdrawn by claimant after clarification of payment received between notification of dismissal by the school (10 November 2023) and formal dismissal by the council (26 January 2024).
Facts
The claimant was employed as a nursery nurse from 28 March 2023 to 10 November 2023. During her short employment, she had significant relationship breakdowns with the nursery teacher (Ms Wade) and then the reception teacher (Ms Chapman) after being redeployed. On 20 September 2023, the claimant found the dismissal of children at the end of the day stressful. On 21 September, she spoke to Ms Chapman in the staff room, complaining she had been left alone; voices were raised on both sides. On 22 September, a meeting was held with the headteacher where the claimant again said she had been left alone and sought an apology from Ms Chapman. The claimant was dismissed during her probationary period on 10 November 2023, told it was due to relationship breakdowns with colleagues.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant did not make the protected disclosures she alleged. She did not raise concerns about child safety or a child potentially going missing on 21 or 22 September 2023; instead she complained about being left alone. The tribunal preferred the contemporaneous notes and evidence of the respondent's witnesses. Without a protected disclosure, both the automatic unfair dismissal claim (s103A ERA) and the detriment claim (s47B ERA) failed. The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the breakdown in working relationships with two teachers and concerns about the claimant's professionalism, not any whistleblowing.
Practical note
A claimant's account of what they said in alleged protected disclosures will be tested against contemporaneous notes and witness evidence, and embellishments added to pleadings after an unsuccessful interim relief application may damage credibility and be fatal to a whistleblowing claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3313225/2023
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Surrey County Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- nursery nurse
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No