1. Miss C Southwell (“CS”) 2. Mrs A Monk (“AM”) v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — 2022

The tribunal found that CS and AM had been employed under one contract of employment each, with their hours increased to 30 per week on a temporary basis in August 2018. Although the claimants worked those hours for a prolonged period, the tribunal held that the 30-hour arrangement had never become permanent. The respondent later carried out a service review in October 2020 against a background of budget savings, and on 31 October 2020 the temporary additional hours ended and the claimants reverted to their permanent 18-hour contracts.

On the dismissal and pay claims, the tribunal held that there had been no dismissal within section 95 ERA 1996 because the respondent had not terminated the employment contracts; it had changed the claimants' working hours. For the same reason, the notice pay complaint failed and the tribunal held that the breach of contract claim was not one it had jurisdiction to determine under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. The unlawful deduction claim also failed because the additional 12 hours were not contractually payable once the temporary arrangement ended. The tribunal noted that the respondent later offered a payment equivalent to one month's notice as part of the grievance outcome, but it made no award.

On the protected disclosure issues, the tribunal accepted that CS made qualifying disclosures on 20 and 23 March 2020, 10 and 24 August 2020, and on 15 September 2020 through PQ, and that AM made one qualifying disclosure on 10 September 2020 through PQ. It rejected the health and safety detriment claims under section 44 ERA 1996 because both claimants had a health and safety representative available and, in practice, that route was used. The protected disclosure detriment claims under section 47B ERA 1996 also failed: the tribunal found that the hours reduction was driven by the service review and budgetary considerations, that the absence of further hours or alternative roles was explained by the claimants being off work or not applying for the vacancy, and that the remark made by WG to DT was tied to the temporary hours situation rather than to any disclosure.

The direct discrimination claims by CS on race and by AM on disability were dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the hours reduction, the failure to offer additional hours or other roles, or the comment to DT was because of race or disability. It noted that the reduction of hours affected four workers, including two who were white, and that the respondent's explanation was consistent across the evidence and supported by the service review documents.