Claimant v Gain Healthcare Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant's complaints about accommodation were not 'circumstances connected with work' within the meaning of s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996 as they did not relate to workplace health and safety. Further, the claimed detrimental treatments either did not occur on the facts or were not motivated by the claimant's health and safety assertions. The true reason for dismissal was the respondent's belief that the claimant caused her sister to post damaging material on Facebook.

The claimant's dismissal was not for the principal reason that she brought health and safety circumstances to the respondent's attention under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant's sister posted damaging photographs and statements on Facebook, not the claimant's own disclosures. The tribunal also held that complaints about accommodation were not 'circumstances connected with work' for the purposes of s.100(1)(c).

The tribunal found that although the claimant's complaints about electricity supply and accommodation could constitute qualifying disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996, the manner in which the claimant's sister disclosed this information on Facebook was not protected under s.43G. The tribunal concluded it would not have been reasonable to post such material publicly before approaching the CQC or utilising the respondent's whistleblowing procedure. Furthermore, the respondent did not dismiss the claimant because she made protected disclosures, but because of the manner in which information was published on Facebook.

The claimant claimed damages of £2,619 paid to the respondent as a pre-employment fee. The tribunal held that this sum was a pre-requisite to the contract coming into existence, not a loss flowing from breach of contract. There was no authority supporting an order for repayment of such a sum as damages for breach of contract, and the tribunal could not see how such a claim could succeed.

The tribunal found the claimant was not guilty of any fundamental breach or repudiation of her contract of employment. She did not cause her sister to post material on Facebook, the respondent had no concerns about her performance, and there was no cogent evidence of breach of contract regarding training. The summary dismissal was therefore not justified at common law, and the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay.