Claimant v General Optical Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant made no protected disclosures. Even if she had, the dismissal was due to performance not meeting required standards during probation, with multiple errors and no indication of future improvement. The protected disclosures (if any) were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found the claimant made no protected disclosures. Even if the alleged detriments occurred (slower feedback, lack of training responses, etc.), they were not because of protected disclosures but due to work pressures, the claimant's errors requiring additional scrutiny, and misunderstandings about IT systems and processes.
The tribunal determined none of the five alleged disclosures were protected disclosures. They were either notifications of IT problems on the claimant's laptop, queries about system processes she misunderstood, or did not contain information tending to show breach of legal obligation. Where beliefs were held, they were not reasonable.
Facts
The claimant was a Registration Officer employed by the General Optical Council from May 2023 until dismissed during probation in September 2023. She made multiple errors in her work including incorrect registrations, data breaches, and misunderstandings of IT systems. After experiencing IT issues with file deletions on her laptop, she alleged colleagues had tampered with registrant records and deleted files. She was dismissed due to performance concerns after 4 months, having been placed on 100% peer review. She appealed unsuccessfully.
Decision
The tribunal found none of the five alleged disclosures were protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. The claimant's reports were either IT problems local to her laptop, misunderstandings of audit systems, or did not contain information tending to show breach of legal obligation with reasonable belief. Her dismissal was due to performance falling below required standards during probation, not any protected disclosures. All claims were dismissed.
Practical note
Reports of IT problems affecting only an individual employee's laptop, without evidence of systemic data breaches or reasonable belief in breach of legal obligations, will not constitute protected disclosures even if the employee genuinely believes wider wrongdoing has occurred.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200170/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Registration Officer
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister