Claimant v Barrow Hill Pre-School
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. None of the alleged breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence were proven. Allegations made against the claimant were not false, investigation delays were caused by claimant's own refusal to engage or respondent's reasonable actions (engaging external HR, manager's bereavement), and the final written warning was within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant failed to establish a cumulative breach with reasonable and proper cause absent.
Tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed, she resigned. As there was no dismissal, the claim under s103A ERA 1996 for automatic unfair dismissal on grounds of making a protected disclosure could not succeed.
Tribunal found the disclosure on 27 June 2023 to Naba Madani and Anissa Messis (that respondent was under ratio) was a protected disclosure, admitted by respondent. However, disclosures to LADO, OFSTED, and Charity Commission on 19 August 2023 were not protected disclosures. LADO is not a prescribed person. For OFSTED and Charity Commission, tribunal found claimant did not hold reasonable belief that information and allegations were substantially true, and disclosures were not made in reasonable belief they fell within prescribed matters or in public interest.
All 15 alleged detriments (from false allegations, delayed investigation, ignoring by colleagues, demotion, lunch break refusal, duty withdrawal, undermining, WhatsApp message, food in gift bag, failure to hear grievance, ACAS code breaches, final warning, invitation to resign, failure to arrange appeal, holiday pay email) either did not occur as alleged, were not detriments, or were not caused by the protected disclosure. Real reasons included: allegations were not false but based on claimant's actual conduct on 27 June 2023; delays caused by claimant's refusal to engage or manager's bereavement; final warning was reasonable response to conduct; manner of disclosure (loud, public, aggressive) was severable from content and was true reason for disciplinary action.
Facts
Claimant was deputy manager of a pre-school charity. On 27 June 2023 she loudly informed trustees in public, within earshot of parents and children, that the pre-school was under-staffed and breaching child-to-staff ratios. This was accepted as a protected disclosure. However, the manner was aggressive, unprofessional, and breached confidentiality about a colleague's health and the business. Disciplinary process followed, complicated by claimant's refusal to engage with investigators and manager's bereavement. Claimant was issued final written warning in January 2024. She resigned on 5 March 2024 citing constructive dismissal, alleging delays in appeal process.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant resigned and was not dismissed. The 27 June 2023 disclosure was protected, but subsequent emails to LADO, OFSTED and Charity Commission were not (claimant lacked reasonable belief information was substantially true or fell within prescribed matters). All detriment allegations failed: proven conduct either did not occur, was not detrimental, or was caused by the manner of disclosure (severable from content) or claimant's own actions, not the protected disclosure itself. Final warning was reasonable response to misconduct. All claims dismissed.
Practical note
The manner in which a protected disclosure is made can be properly separated from its content, and discipline for aggressive, public, confidential breaches is lawful even where the underlying disclosure is protected.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2200448/2024
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Deputy Manager
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep