Claimant v Bridge2Future Care Limited

The Claimant did not make any protected disclosure. The comment about doors being left unlocked was an observation and did not disclose information showing a relevant failure under s.43B ERA. All other alleged disclosures were found not to have occurred on the facts. As the Claimant did not make a protected disclosure, the claim for automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA failed at the first hurdle.

All detriment complaints failed because the Claimant did not make a protected disclosure. The tribunal also found that most alleged acts of detriment did not occur on the facts, and where they did occur (e.g. lack of detail before probationary review) there was no causal link to any alleged disclosure. The Claimant was not refused breaks, was not refused appeal rights, and there was no evidence of breach of ACAS Code as alleged.

All direct discrimination claims relying on the Claimant's Muslim faith failed. The tribunal found: (1) the Claimant was not refused breaks (she took them but was questioned about their length due to managers' concerns about excessive time away); (2) there was no evidence that provision of Halal food/utensils was delayed because of her religion; (3) the allegation that Ms Brophy removed food labels was not made out on the facts and was never put to the witness; (4) the rota was not produced a month in advance for anyone, not just the Claimant; (5) there was no evidence the Claimant was shouted at. The Claimant failed to identify appropriate comparators and failed to show any link between treatment and her religion.