Claimant v Care And Learning Alliance
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant was subjected to five detriments including forced resignation by the First Respondent, summary dismissal by the Second Respondent, and malicious referral to GTCS, all because of protected disclosures. The tribunal found the employers acted to appease Highland Council and witnesses gave evidence known to be untrue.
The tribunal found the claimant suffered five detriments as a result of whistleblowing, including the referral to GTCS described as 'malicious' with no genuine cause for concern about practice. The detriments were part of a campaign to protect the respondents' relationship with Highland Council.
The First Respondent forced the claimant to resign and the Second Respondent summarily dismissed her for whistleblowing. The dismissal was a sham with no fair disciplinary process, no opportunity to consider evidence or be accompanied, conducted to appease Highland Council rather than for genuine disciplinary reasons.
Facts
The claimant, a teacher, was forced to resign by the First Respondent and summarily dismissed by the Second Respondent following protected disclosures. She was then maliciously referred to the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) which initiated disciplinary proceedings lasting five years, causing severe psychiatric injury. The referral was made to protect the respondents' relationship with Highland Council and witnesses gave false evidence. The GTCS refused to admit the tribunal judgment as evidence, requiring the claimant to bring successful Judicial Review proceedings. She developed Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder requiring ongoing psychiatric treatment and remains unable to work.
Decision
This remedy hearing followed EAT remittal. The tribunal awarded substantial compensation including past and future loss of earnings (3 years), injury to feelings (£20,000), psychiatric injury (£16,000), and reimbursement of legal expenses for defending the GTCS proceedings (£11,902.50), Judicial Review (£4,500), and the ET liability hearing (£20,000). A 5% ACAS uplift was applied for failure to follow proper disciplinary procedures. The respondents' unreasonable conduct in defending proceedings based on false evidence and causing unnecessary expert witness expense justified costs awards.
Practical note
Employers who orchestrate dismissals through false evidence to protect commercial relationships and then subject whistleblowers to protracted regulatory proceedings face substantial compensation including psychiatric injury awards and recovery of all legal costs incurred in defending wrongly-initiated professional disciplinary proceedings.
Award breakdown
Vento band: middle
Award equivalent: 245.4 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
ACAS uplift applied due to failure to follow proper disciplinary procedures. The dismissal was a sham with no formal disciplinary hearing, claimant not given evidence to consider, not accompanied at meeting, and grievances were ignored.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4118429/2018
- Decision date
- 6 December 2024
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Teacher / Childhood Practice Manager candidate
- Salary band
- £40,000–£50,000
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister