Cases2407213/2021

Claimant v B

18 January 2024Before Employment Judge McDonaldManchesterhybrid

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant had made protected disclosures. The respondent dismissed the claimant for 'gross insubordination' which referred to the claimant raising concerns about the use of the Peristeen bowel irrigation kit without medical supervision (PD4) and the COVID disclosure (PD2). The respondent was annoyed and affronted by the claimant telling her how to manage her own care. This was the reason operating on the respondent's mind.

Detrimentsucceeded

D1 (pay reduction of £100 per week from November 2020): The tribunal found this was not a reduction in hours but a 'punishment' following protected disclosures PD2 and PD4. The respondent stopped making allowances for the claimant as a friend and reduced her pay from £480 to £380 per week despite the claimant continuing to work the same 24-hour shifts. The protected disclosures were a material influence on the decision to reduce pay.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The claimant's employment ended 45 weeks and 3 days into her holiday year. She had accrued 4.8 weeks holiday (0.87 of the full year entitlement of 5.6 weeks). She had taken 3 weeks. Therefore 1.8 weeks remained unpaid. The respondent failed to pay this accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The claimant's contractual hours from August 2020 were 48 hours per week (2 x 24 hour days at £10 per hour = £480 per week). From the payslip dated 27 November 2020, she was paid only £380 per week (38 hours). This constituted an unauthorised deduction of £100 per week. The tribunal found she was entitled to be paid for 24 hours per day whether she slept over or not.

Breach of Contractfailed

The claimant claimed the respondent underpaid notice pay by £200. However, her contractual and statutory notice entitlement was 1 week (£480). She was paid £760 in lieu of notice, which exceeded her contractual entitlement. On the requirement to sleep over from November, the tribunal found this was within the contract which required 24-hour cover, and the pay from August reflected this. The respondent simply stopped the initial 'friend' allowance of not requiring sleepovers. No breach of contract found.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Personal Assistant to a disabled individual (the respondent) from February to December 2020, working initially 20 hours per week on Mondays, then 48 hours per week on Mondays and Wednesdays from July 2020. The parties had been friends for many years before the employment began. In October 2020, the claimant disclosed she had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 and should not attend work until she had a negative test. The respondent insisted she attend work. In November 2020, the claimant raised concerns about the respondent using a bowel irrigation kit without medical supervision or training. The relationship deteriorated: the respondent reduced the claimant's pay by £100 per week, required her to sleep over, and ultimately dismissed her in December 2020 citing timekeeping, 'questioning treatment regimes', and attending work with a chest infection.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under s.103A ERA 1996 because the principal reason for dismissal was that she had made protected disclosures, particularly about the unsafe use of the bowel irrigation kit. The tribunal also found the respondent subjected the claimant to two whistleblowing detriments: reducing her pay by £100 per week and refusing to allow her to take annual leave. The claims for unpaid holiday pay (1.8 weeks) and unlawful deduction of wages (£100 per week from November) succeeded. The breach of contract claim failed. A remedy hearing was listed for January 2024.

Practical note

An employer's characterisation of an employee's protected disclosures as 'gross insubordination' or 'questioning my judgment' does not shield them from liability for automatic unfair dismissal or whistleblowing detriment claims where the disclosures relate to genuine health and safety concerns.

Legal authorities cited

Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] ICR 325Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] ICR 372International Petroleum Ltd v Osipov UKEAT/0058/17/DAArthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd [2007] ICR 193ASLEF v Brady [2006] IRLR 576Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Audere Medical Services Ltd v Sanderson EAT 0409/12Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald Europe UKEAT/0016/18/DAChesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg.13Working Time Regulations 1998 Reg.14Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 Article 3ERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.43BERA 1996 s.43CERA 1996 s.47BERA 1996 s.48ERA 1996 s.13

Case details

Case number
2407213/2021
Decision date
18 January 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
B
Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
Personal Assistant
Service
10 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No