In person For the v Mr S Hoyle (Consultant) — 2023

Ms Dhaliwal worked for the respondent from 4 May 2021 until her dismissal on 28 July 2021, effective 30 July 2021. The tribunal held that none of the 14 matters she relied upon amounted to protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. It found that a number of the complaints lacked sufficient factual content or specificity, that some were framed as allegations rather than disclosure of information, and that in several instances she had not identified the underlying legal obligation or checked the relevant policies or facts before making the complaint. The tribunal also found that she did not have a reasonable belief that the matters complained of showed a breach of legal obligation or a risk to health and safety.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Dhaliwal did raise concerns about staffing ratios, a child being left alone, fire drills, use of personal devices for work and matters said to have been raised with Ofsted, but it rejected parts of her account and gave weight to the nursery records and witness evidence. It found, for example, that some ratio complaints were unsupported by the rota evidence, that her concerns about the personal laptop and mobile phone were based on assumptions rather than checking the nursery's systems and policies, and that her Ofsted account was inconsistent as to what was reported and when. It also found that she sometimes overstated incidents or misdescribed them, including by presenting matters in a way that gave a false impression of the staffing position.

On dismissal, the tribunal did not accept that Ms Dhaliwal was dismissed on 9 July 2021. It found that the respondent's email of 28 July 2021 was the unambiguous dismissal, and that the reason was not her alleged protected disclosures but her manner of raising complaints, the breakdown in relationships with colleagues and management, and the respondent's view that she had failed her probationary period. The whistleblowing detriment complaint also failed because the tribunal found the adverse treatment complained of was explained by her conduct and the way she raised concerns, rather than by any protected disclosure. The separate wrongful dismissal/notice pay claim had been abandoned at the hearing and was dismissed.