Claimant v Secretary of State for Defence

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned her employment and was not constructively dismissed. She alleged nine detriments flowing from whistleblowing but the tribunal found only one detriment factually occurred (an adverse comment included in a disciplinary investigation), which did not constitute conduct calculated to destroy trust and confidence, and in any event the claimant had affirmed the contract by working on for nearly a year. Without a dismissal, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing under s103A failed.

The claimant alleged nine detriments arising from protected disclosures. The tribunal found only one disclosure qualified as protected (reporting that an ultrasound machine was six years out of date on 3 May 2022). Of nine alleged detriments, only one (Detriment 4: an adverse comment made about the claimant in April 2022) was factually proven, but the tribunal found it was not done on the ground of the protected disclosure, and in any event it was nine months out of time and the claimant gave no evidence why it was not reasonably practicable to bring a claim earlier.

The claimant relied on three alleged protected disclosures: (1) telling Mr Fitch in October 2021 that medication was out of date; (2) telling Mrs Usherwood in February/March 2022 that medication was out of date and an ultrasound machine was six years out of date; and (3) informing managers in May 2022 that a physiotherapist was unregistered. The tribunal found only the second disclosure (ultrasound machine on 3 May 2022) was a protected disclosure. The other alleged disclosures either did not occur or the claimant did not genuinely believe them to be in the public interest. The claim failed because the detriment and dismissal claims failed.

The claimant relied on eight alleged fundamental breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence (corresponding to Detriments 1-8). The tribunal found that only one detriment (Detriment 4) factually occurred, but this did not constitute conduct calculated to destroy trust and confidence as there was reasonable and proper cause for it. Even if it had, the claimant had affirmed the contract by working on for nearly a year before resigning. The tribunal concluded the claimant resigned and was not constructively dismissed.