Claimant v Vision Express (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure on 8 June because the words she claimed to have said about clinical safety were not spoken. The tribunal accepted the manager's account that he did not ask her to see two patients in 25 minutes. For subsequent alleged detriments relating to grievance handling, the tribunal found these were due to procedural errors, inexperience, and genuine differences in interpretation, not because of the protected disclosures. The respondent demonstrated that the protected disclosures played no material part in the alleged detriments.
Facts
The claimant was an optometrist employed since June 2022. She alleged that on 8 June 2022 her manager instructed her to see two patients in 25 minutes (clinically unsafe), which she refused. She reported this to senior management and raised a formal grievance. The tribunal heard detailed evidence about a meeting on 8 June where the claimant claimed she was subjected to hostile treatment after raising patient safety concerns. The respondent denied the manager had asked her to see patients in unsafe timeframes and maintained the conversation concerned conversion rates and normal ghost clinic practices (booking backup patients in case of cancellations).
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the claimant did not make the alleged protected disclosure on 8 June because the words claimed were not actually spoken. While accepting later grievance communications as protected disclosures, the tribunal found none of the alleged detriments were on the ground of those disclosures. The grievance investigation failures were due to investigator inexperience and procedural errors, not retaliation. The tribunal preferred the manager's account of events, finding the claimant's recollection was affected by her emotional state and interpretation of events.
Practical note
In whistleblowing detriment claims, tribunals will carefully scrutinise whether the alleged disclosure was actually made as claimed, and even where protected disclosures are established, poor grievance handling may be attributed to procedural failings rather than retaliation if there is credible evidence of alternative explanations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300360/2023
- Decision date
- 4 June 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- optometrist
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister