Claimant v Shakti Women's Aid
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal concluded that the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures as the information disclosed lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to show a relevant failure under s43B ERA. The claimant's concerns were characterised as relating to teamwork rather than health and safety or legal obligations. Therefore, the detriment claims premised on protected disclosures could not succeed.
The tribunal found the claimant did not make protected disclosures, so the claim that dismissal was caused by such disclosures under s103A ERA could not succeed. The tribunal rejected the assertion that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures.
The tribunal concluded that there was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The alleged 'last straw' (the investigation outcome) was not dismissive of the claimant's concerns and the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions. The earlier acts relied upon were also found not to breach the duty of trust and confidence, either individually or cumulatively. The claimant was therefore not constructively dismissed.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Children and Young People Support Worker at a charity supporting BME women and children experiencing abuse. She raised concerns that two colleagues (C1 & C2) left group activities early, first at Edinburgh Castle in March 2024 and again at the Botanic Gardens in April 2024 (where a child briefly went missing). She reported these to her line manager NR in writing, stating her concerns related to improving teamwork. Following a Care Inspectorate inspection, the respondent implemented stricter procedures. The claimant felt NR tried to change her incident report, was dismissive of her concerns, and micromanaged her. She resigned on 5 August 2024 having secured alternative employment.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant's reports to NR did not constitute protected disclosures because they lacked sufficient factual content to show health and safety endangerment or breach of legal obligation—they were framed as teamwork concerns. Consequently, the detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claims failed. The constructive dismissal claim also failed as the tribunal found no repudiatory breach: the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions, the investigation outcome fairly addressed the claimant's concerns, and NR's conduct did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence.
Practical note
For a whistleblowing claim to succeed, the disclosure must have sufficient factual content showing a relevant statutory failure (e.g. health and safety risk), not merely express dissatisfaction with colleagues' working practices or teamwork—labelling concerns as being 'in the public interest' retrospectively is insufficient.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001785/2024
- Decision date
- 4 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Children and Young People Support Worker
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor