Claimant v Unicare - Homecare Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's disclosures to her employer about a service user's inappropriate sexual behaviour were not made in the public interest as required by s.43B ERA 1996. Although the claimant disclosed information believing it showed a criminal offence/health and safety issue, the tribunal concluded she was concerned only for her own wellbeing and safety, not a wider public interest. Without a qualifying protected disclosure, the detriment claim under s.47B could not succeed.
The constructive dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 failed for the same reason as the detriment claim. The tribunal found the claimant did not make a qualifying protected disclosure because her disclosures were not made in the public interest — she was concerned only for herself, not other staff. Without a protected disclosure, s.103A could not apply and the automatically unfair dismissal claim could not succeed.
The claimant withdrew all discrimination claims, including harassment and victimisation on grounds of sex and age, before the final hearing. These were dismissed under Rule 52 by a Legal Officer judgment dated 10 December 2024.
Withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 on 10 December 2024.
Withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 on 10 December 2024.
Withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed under Rule 52 on 10 December 2024.
Facts
A care assistant reported to her employer on multiple occasions that a male service user was making sexually inappropriate comments, touching her hair, and making unwanted advances. The employer spoke to the service user twice and told him the behaviour was unacceptable. The claimant resigned in March 2024 after approximately seven months' employment, claiming she felt unsafe and that the employer had failed to protect her by continuing to assign her to that service user's care.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The whistleblowing claims failed because the tribunal found the claimant's disclosures about the service user's behaviour were not made in the public interest — she was concerned only for her own safety, not that of other staff. Without a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996, the claims under s.47B (detriment) and s.103A (automatic unfair dismissal) could not succeed. The discrimination claims had been withdrawn earlier.
Practical note
A disclosure about a service user's sexual harassment of a care worker will not qualify as a protected disclosure if the worker was motivated solely by personal concern for their own safety, even where the employer is in a regulated sector and has duties to protect staff.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4105389/2024
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Care Assistant
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor