In person (assisted by Mr Howells, a friend of the claimant during the hearing in December 2018) For the v Respondent — 2019

Ms Johal, a senior manager in Sandwell MBC's Adult and Family Learning Service, was suspended in June 2015 after an internal audit and fraud investigation arising from anonymous whistleblower allegations about procurement and Learning Exchange. The tribunal accepted that two of Ms Johal's later emails, in October 2015 and March 2016, were qualifying disclosures about data protection issues, but it found the first and third alleged disclosures were too general to amount to disclosures of information.

The reasonable adjustments claim was limited to a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal identified two PCPs: a requirement to attend disciplinary meetings on various dates between April and August 2016, and communication with Ms Johal by post and email during the disciplinary process. It accepted that the respondent knew of her sacroiliac joint dysfunction and later of anxiety and depression, but found she had not identified any substantial disadvantage arising from the PCPs for the back condition. In relation to the mental health condition, the tribunal found the respondent had sought occupational health advice, allowed time for her to read the papers, and offered opportunities to respond in writing, so the claim failed.

On the whistleblowing complaints, the tribunal rejected the conspiracy allegation and found no evidential basis for a link between the protected disclosures and the decisions made by Mrs Bains, Mr Davey or Mr Lackenby. It found no proved detriments: Ms Johal had not shown who committed each alleged detriment or how they knew of the disclosures, and the complaint that Mr Davey proceeded with the disciplinary hearing while she was off sick was inconsistent with the position she was taking at the time. The s.103A protected-disclosure dismissal and detriment complaints were therefore dismissed.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the respondent dismissed Ms Johal for conduct and some other substantial reason after concluding that she remained linked to Learning Exchange when she authorised two orders for £99.50 and £98.90, that the related signatures on the cheques and internal supplier form were hers, and that she had colluded with Mrs Howells over the Appointment of Bankers Form. It also relied on the tone and content of Ms Johal's correspondence as showing an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship. The tribunal held the investigation and appeal were fair and within the range of reasonable responses, and that any minor procedural defects would not have changed the outcome.

The wrongful dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal noted that Ms Johal had already been paid her notice pay, but held that the respondent proved conduct amounting to repudiatory breach on the balance of probabilities. No monetary award was made.