Claimant v Nottinghamshire County Council

The tribunal found that the claimant's repeated accessing of Child X's confidential data over more than 5 months, transferring it to personal devices and sharing with solicitors was not a qualifying protected disclosure. It did not constitute obtaining legal advice under s.43D ERA 1996, nor did it satisfy the requirements of s.43G or s.43H. The conduct was separable from the manifestation of her religious beliefs and was not necessary to make the disclosure.

The tribunal found that the various alleged detriments (suspension, disciplinary investigation, report to ICO, TRA, DBS, dismissal of appeal) were not because the claimant made protected disclosures but because of her inappropriate use of the CPOMS system to access and share confidential data about Child X. The principle of separability applied - her conduct could be separated from the manifestation of her beliefs.

The tribunal concluded the reason for dismissal was not that the claimant made protected disclosures but her misconduct in accessing and sharing confidential data about Child X through the CPOMS system over a five-month period. The claimant admitted she would do the same thing again in similar circumstances, which the tribunal found demonstrated ongoing risk to safeguarding.

The tribunal found the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief after proper investigation, and acted reasonably in treating the conduct as sufficient reason for dismissal. The claimant's repeated unauthorised access to Child X's data, transfer to personal devices, sharing with solicitors, and stated intention to repeat the conduct made dismissal within the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal found the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct. Her deliberate and repeated breaches of data protection policies, accessing confidential safeguarding information about a vulnerable child without legitimate purpose over five months, transferring it to personal devices and sharing with third parties, combined with her admission she would do it again, constituted a fundamental breach entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice.

The tribunal accepted the claimant held qualifying religious and philosophical beliefs but found none of the alleged detriments were because of her actual or perceived beliefs. Applying the principle of separability, the claimant's conduct in misusing the CPOMS system could be separated from the manifestation of her beliefs. Any teacher who accessed multiple records over five months for evidence gathering and indicated they would repeat the conduct would have been treated the same way.

The tribunal found that while some matters constituted unwanted conduct, they were not related to the claimant's religious or philosophical beliefs but to her misuse of the CPOMS system and repeated accessing of Child X's data. Applying the principle of separability, the unwanted conduct related to her misconduct, not her beliefs. The tribunal also found insufficient evidence the conduct met the Dhaliwal threshold for harassment.