Claimant v Disability Solutions (West Midlands) Limited

The tribunal found the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures because the disclosures were not made in the reasonable belief that they were in the public interest — they concerned personal complaints about treatment by colleagues rather than wider public interest issues. Without qualifying protected disclosures, the automatic unfair dismissal claim could not succeed.

The claim failed because the tribunal found no qualifying protected disclosures were made, and also found the claimant had not been subjected to the alleged detrimental treatment. Specifically, the tribunal rejected allegations that the CEO ignored or shouted at the claimant after she raised a grievance, finding the CEO remained friendly and supportive throughout.

The tribunal found two incidents of unwanted conduct of a sexual nature by a male employee (comments about sex in exchange for food on 6 October 2022, and asking to watch the claimant use the toilet on 5 September 2022) but both claims were out of time. The tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds, noting a delay of at least 7 days and no good explanation for not bringing claims within the 3-month limit.

The tribunal found that the two acts of sexual harassment that occurred (on 5 September and 6 October 2022) did not sufficiently influence the overall repudiatory breach so as to render the constructive dismissal discriminatory. These incidents were not mentioned in the claimant's grievance or resignation letter, and the material reasons for resignation were perceived breakdown in relations with management, not the earlier harassment by a male colleague.

The victimisation claim relied on the same alleged detriments as the whistleblowing detriment claims. The tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to the alleged detriments (being ignored or shouted at by the CEO after raising a grievance), therefore the claim failed on the facts. The tribunal did not need to determine whether the alleged protected disclosures constituted protected acts.

The claimant was not entitled to notice pay because she resigned with immediate effect and her claims of automatic unfair dismissal and discriminatory constructive dismissal both failed. Without a finding of constructive dismissal, the resignation was voluntary and no notice pay was due.

Following disclosure of holiday records by the respondent, the claimant accepted she had been fully paid all her holiday entitlement and withdrew her claim for 4 days' outstanding holiday pay.