Claimant v Mathew Biju Thoppil

The tribunal found none of the three alleged disclosures were protected disclosures within s43B ERA 1996. PD1 and PD2 were not proven to have been made and were mere allegations not information. PD3 was made in part but did not disclose information in the public interest and related only to the claimant personally. There was no causal connection between any disclosures and dismissal; the real reason for dismissal was poor performance during probation.

The respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know the claimant had a hearing impairment or any psychological impairment. The duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered as the respondent had no knowledge of disability.

The tribunal found the alleged remark 'what the fuck because you were deaf anyway' was not said. The claimant's detailed contemporaneous written statement made no mention of this remark, nor did her claim form or witness statement. The tribunal preferred the contemporaneous account.

The tribunal found none of the three alleged remarks (regarding 'little girl needing her mummy', referring to women as 'girls', or 'chitty chat') were made. The claimant provided no specific dates or witnesses despite being ordered to do so, and the allegations were not in her witness statement or claim form. The tribunal preferred Mr Thoppil's evidence.

The tribunal found the allegation that Mr Thoppil spoke to others in the claimant's presence in an Asian language was not proven. The allegation was extremely vague with no particulars, dates, or documentary evidence and was not mentioned in the claim form or witness statement.

The tribunal found the same three remarks relied upon for harassment were not made. Additionally, regarding allegation 4 (not being allowed to leave on time), the tribunal found this factually incorrect - the claimant as a senior manager had flexibility over her hours and no evidence was provided of any occasion she was prevented from leaving to care for her child. No evidence shifted the burden of proof.

The claimant compared herself to a Clinical Lead who was paid £25,000 more. The tribunal found this claim misconceived as the Clinical Lead was a qualified nurse doing a completely different job and was not an appropriate comparator in the same material circumstances.

The tribunal found no PCP of allowing languages other than English to be used in the workplace. The evidence showed English was the policy and language of communication, with the claimant herself confirming to CQC that all staff spoke good English. Any other languages were used only during breaks and by staff from many countries, not just Asian languages.

The contract entitled the claimant to time off in lieu for overtime hours, not payment in lieu. There was no contractual entitlement to payment for accrued TOIL at termination. Additionally, the claimant never identified the amount claimed or kept records of overtime hours worked.