Outcome
Individual claims
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Statutes
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