Claimant v Ross and Cromarty Citizens Advice Bureau Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure. The tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that the alleged incident of Ms MacDonald grabbing the claimant's arm did not occur, the claimant did not inform Mr Spence of it on 9 or 11 August 2023, and even if the incident had occurred as alleged, it was a minor workplace dispute not reasonably believed to be in the public interest.
The tribunal found no detriments were established on the grounds of a protected disclosure. Each alleged detriment (different treatment, exclusion from investigation, untrue comments in report, probation decision, denial of disclosure in Response, and fabrication allegation) was found to be either not established or not causally linked to any protected disclosure.
The tribunal found that even if a protected disclosure had been made, it was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal accepted Mr Spence's evidence that he dismissed the claimant based on his genuine belief that she had told untruths, exhibited controlling behaviour, and that there had been an irrevocable breakdown of trust. The dismissal was incompetently handled but was not motivated by any protected disclosure.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Generalist Team Supervisor at a Citizens Advice Bureau and was dismissed during what the employer incorrectly believed was still her probationary period. She alleged that a volunteer (Ms MacDonald) grabbed her arm during an argument on 9 August 2023 and that she reported this to her manager (Mr Spence). Following an investigation, Mr Spence dismissed the claimant on 18 August 2023, ostensibly for performance concerns including making untrue statements and controlling behaviour towards volunteers. The claimant alleged this was a sham and the real reason was her protected disclosure about the alleged assault. She also appealed unsuccessfully to Mrs MacDonald.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found on the balance of probabilities that the alleged arm-grabbing incident did not occur, or at most involved minimal inadvertent contact. The tribunal concluded the claimant did not tell Mr Spence about any arm-grabbing on 9 or 11 August 2023, and even if she had, it would not have constituted a protected disclosure as it was not reasonably believed to be in the public interest. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's stated reasons for dismissal (loss of trust due to perceived untruths and controlling behaviour) were genuine, albeit the process was incompetently handled and lacked common decency.
Practical note
A workplace disagreement between an employee and a volunteer, even if it involved minor physical contact, is unlikely to constitute a protected disclosure unless it is reasonably believed to be in the public interest rather than a purely personal workplace dispute.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000010/2024
- Decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Generalist Team Supervisor (Session Supervisor)
- Salary band
- Under £15,000
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep