Claimant v Nicholas Postgate Catholic Academy Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures because she did not believe at the time that the disclosures served any wider public interest beyond her own personal or private interests. Without protected disclosures, the whistleblowing detriment claims could not succeed.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal concluded that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures.
The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The principal reason for dismissal was the employer's genuine belief that the claimant had fabricated a witness statement, amounting to gross misconduct. The employer had reasonable grounds for this belief following a reasonable investigation, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. Although the suspension was unreasonably lengthy, the overall process was fair and the dismissal was reasonable in the circumstances.
Facts
The claimant worked as a breakfast club and lunchtime assistant/supervisor at a school operated by the respondent Trust. She also had a separate cleaning contract with Middlesbrough Council. Over a prolonged period from 2020 onwards, the claimant made numerous grievances and allegations against colleagues and managers concerning various workplace disputes, including allegations of theft, bullying, and procedural failings. In May 2021 she submitted a document she said was a signed witness statement from a former colleague, Ms Sherwood, supporting her case. Ms Sherwood later said she had not signed the statement and the signature was not hers. The claimant was suspended in January 2022 and remained suspended for over 20 months. A disciplinary investigation concluded the claimant had fabricated the witness statement and made vexatious allegations. She was dismissed for gross misconduct in September 2023 and her appeal was unsuccessful.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant's numerous alleged protected disclosures failed because the tribunal found she did not genuinely believe they were made in the public interest — they served only her personal interests. Without protected disclosures, the whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claims could not succeed. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim also failed: the employer had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant fabricated a witness statement, conducted a reasonable investigation, and dismissal for gross misconduct fell within the band of reasonable responses. Although the suspension was unreasonably lengthy, the overall dismissal process was fair.
Practical note
A claimant asserting whistleblowing protection must show a genuine belief that disclosures served the public interest, not merely their own private grievances, even if disclosures concern serious allegations; and dismissal for fabricating evidence in support of a grievance will ordinarily be fair if the employer has reasonable grounds for that belief after reasonable investigation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2502336/2023
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- breakfast club and lunchtime assistant/supervisor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor