Claimant v London Underground Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures in April 2018 relating to fraud, health and safety breaches, and discrimination, none of the 19 alleged detriments were caused by or on the ground of those disclosures. In each instance where detriment was found (e.g. low performance rating, delayed feedback, breach of mediation agreement), the tribunal concluded these were either operationally justified, made by managers unaware of disclosure details, or genuine mistakes unconnected to the whistleblowing.
Facts
The claimant, a long-serving Trains Manager at London Underground, made protected disclosures in April 2018 alleging fraud, health and safety breaches, and discrimination by colleagues between 2010-2012. She alleged 19 separate detriments between May 2022 and July 2023, including negative performance ratings, blocked secondment applications, breach of a mediation agreement, and grievance outcomes that she claimed were in retaliation for her whistleblowing. The respondent denied the detriments were caused by the disclosures.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant made seven qualifying protected disclosures in 2018. However, despite finding some detriments occurred (e.g. low performance rating, delayed feedback, breach of mediation agreement), the tribunal concluded none were caused by or on the ground of the protected disclosures. Managers either had no knowledge of disclosure details, acted for legitimate operational reasons, or made genuine mistakes unconnected to the whistleblowing. The claim was dismissed.
Practical note
A whistleblowing detriment claim fails if the tribunal finds the protected disclosure was not the causative reason for the treatment, even where some detriments are established and the disclosures themselves qualify for protection.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303708/2022
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Trains Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No