Claimant v MSI Reproductive Choices

The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation but that the consultation did not take place at a formative stage. The decision to dismiss was predetermined and the consultation process was conducted in bad faith, as the decision to delete the claimant's role had been made several months earlier during her sickness absence.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim on whistleblowing grounds could not succeed. The reason for dismissal was redundancy, not protected disclosures.

The tribunal found cogent non-discriminatory reasons for the treatment complained of. The restructure and dismissal were driven by a genuine business need for clinical leadership by a qualified sonographer who was also a registered nurse or midwife, not because of the claimant's Long Covid disability.

Two allegations of harassment (issues 1.1(a) and (b)) were withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing. Other harassment allegations failed because the tribunal found they did not relate to the claimant's disability but to genuine business needs for restructuring.

The tribunal found that the unfavourable treatment (dismissal) did not arise in consequence of the claimant's disability. The decision to restructure was not connected with the claimant's sickness absence from Long Covid but with genuine operational requirements for clinical leadership.

The allegation failed on facts. The claimant conceded that the requirement to attend clinics in person and to visit four clinics each week did not exacerbate her health condition, so no substantial disadvantage was established.

The tribunal found that the letter dated 23 March 2022 (PA1) was not a protected act. For PA2 (the first claim), the tribunal found that it was not causative of the dismissal because the decision to restructure had already been made before PA2 was filed.

The whistleblowing detriment claims failed because the tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures. Additionally, some allegations failed on the facts (e.g., the allegation that colleagues were instructed to closely watch the claimant was not proven).

Withdrawn by the claimant at a preliminary hearing on 25 July 2023.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying disclosures. The letters dated 1, 8 and 19 April 2022 did not meet the statutory requirements for protected disclosures under sections 43A-C of the Employment Rights Act 1996.