Claimant v St Anne's Community Services Limited

The tribunal found PIDs 1, 5 and 6 were qualifying disclosures. However, no detrimental treatment found was on the ground of the disclosures made. The tribunal concluded the adverse treatment by Mrs Kirkby in September and October 2022 was due to changed financial circumstances, loss of confidence in the claimant's capability and workload management, and unrelated to the protected disclosures.

Detriments 1, 2, 4, 6 to 11 and 13 amounted to conduct cumulatively and in some cases separately breaching the implied term of trust and confidence. Principally, the tribunal found breaches in Mrs Kirkby's treatment on 13 and 26 September and 10 October 2022, including an unscheduled PDR with unjustified criticism, deletion of emails beyond 'junk', cuts to team resourcing without explanation, failure to conduct return to work, and taking over the claimant's meetings without discussion. The claimant did not affirm her contract and resigned substantially in response to these breaches.

The respondent alleged gross misconduct as a defence to wrongful dismissal (notice pay). The tribunal found the claimant did not engage in gross misconduct. She made an oral declaration about knowing Mr Webb at interview, her De'Leigh company was dormant and declared, and other alleged conduct issues did not amount to repudiatory breach. Constructive wrongful dismissal therefore succeeded.

Holiday pay complaint was not pursued in the claimant's schedule of loss or witness statement and was dismissed.

Section 103A claim (automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure) dismissed. The tribunal concluded it cannot be said the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant made one or more protected disclosures. The adverse treatment was not on the ground of the disclosures found.