Claimant v Chanel Limited

Outcome

Facts

The claimant, a long-serving employee of Chanel Limited, was unsuccessful in two internal job applications in 2022 and 2023. She became convinced that her work emails were being hacked, doctored, or deleted by Ben Williams (Head of Employment) and others, particularly after raising a formal grievance about the recruitment process. She made six alleged protected disclosures between January and June 2024 regarding alleged email tampering and a purportedly falsified contract signature. The respondent conducted thorough IT investigations which found no evidence of hacking or tampering. The tribunal found the claimant's allegations were based on conjecture rather than evidence, noting she had been predisposed to suspect hacking due to a family member's experience. The underlying dispute concerned the claimant's job title, which had been left unresolved for nearly two years (2022-2024) following her move from retail to head office, causing her understandable frustration.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. None of the six alleged protected disclosures qualified for statutory protection. For the first five disclosures (regarding email hacking), the tribunal found it was not reasonable for the claimant to believe they tended to show a breach of legal obligation, as there was no cogent evidence of tampering and the allegations against Ben Williams were rejected in the strongest terms. For the sixth disclosure (regarding a contract signature), the tribunal found the claimant did not believe, nor would it have been reasonable to believe, this was in the public interest. The first eight alleged detriments were out of time, and in any event, the claimant failed to establish detrimental treatment occurred. The tribunal expressed sympathy for the claimant regarding the prolonged uncertainty over her job title but found this did not constitute unlawful detriment.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited