Claimant v Man Group Services Ltd

The tribunal concluded that the principal reason for the dismissal was loss of trust and confidence in the claimant's ability to carry out the Chief People Officer role, based on the interim findings of Project Kregel and Project Sartre. The protected disclosures regarding email monitoring were not the principal reason. The tribunal found that Project Kregel was not a sham investigation and Ms Wade's reliance on its findings was reasonable and unrelated to the claimant's concerns about email monitoring.

The tribunal found that the respondent's decision to dismiss for some other substantial reason (irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence) fell within the range of reasonable responses. In the unusual circumstances, where two independent external investigations had been conducted and the claimant had been interviewed extensively, it was reasonable for Ms Wade to conclude that no further process was required. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had demonstrated a lack of awareness of risk management at senior level and had lost trust in her colleagues. It was reasonable to dismiss without following a performance management process or offering an appeal.

The claimant alleged five separate protected disclosures relating to email monitoring practices, GDPR compliance, and whistleblower detriment. The tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures under s43B ERA. In respect of the email monitoring concerns, the tribunal did not accept that the claimant expressly told her manager Mr Forterre that the system was unlawful or explained how it breached GDPR with any specificity. Her focus was on cultural fit, efficacy and ethics rather than legal obligations. The tribunal found the claimant had not established the required reasonable belief that the information disclosed tended to show a breach of legal obligation.

The claimant alleged six separate detriments including initiation of Project Kregel (a 'sham investigation'), the decision to dismiss, the manner of dismissal, failure to follow appeal procedure, and cancellation of benefits. The tribunal found that the detriment claims failed because the claimant had not established that she made protected disclosures. Furthermore, the tribunal found that Project Kregel was not a sham investigation but was prompted by genuine complaints from staff about the reorganisation of the People Team. The timing of complaints (11 August) was prompted by an email on 25 July announcing the new structure, not by the email monitoring conversations in June/July.