Miss K Mabhena v Rodor Housing and Support Ltd — 2019

Miss Mabhena worked as a support worker for Rodor Housing and Support Ltd from 12 March 2018. The tribunal found that her initial induction consisted of two two-hour shadow shifts on 12 and 15 March 2018, followed by Team Teach training on 7 June 2018 and an induction day on 14 June 2018. It found that her three-month probationary period had expired by 13 June 2018 and that there were no proper probation reviews. The tribunal also accepted that she sometimes worked alone with vulnerable young people.

The tribunal found that Miss Mabhena made protected disclosures in July and early August 2018 about emergency placements arriving without care plans or risk assessments, DF not receiving the one-to-one support funded by Lewisham Council, lone working, and sanctions imposed on a young person. It did not treat the PMVA-training point as a qualifying disclosure, and it also rejected the gloves/PPE point because it was not made in the public interest. On the whistleblowing detriment claim, it found detriments including the 13 July supervision with two managers, the suspension of shifts after the 1 August supervision, and the negative Pulse reference. It also found that the claimant was required to apologise in the meeting with Mr Gabula and that the claimant's concerns were not properly investigated.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that Miss Mabhena resigned on 9 August 2018 in response to the detriments she had suffered, particularly the suspension of shifts pending a further meeting with Mr Gabula. It held that this amounted to constructive dismissal and that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason was the protected disclosures. The tribunal also upheld direct sex discrimination and harassment related to sex. It found that Mr Gabula's comments about the claimant's relationships with male colleagues, and the treatment she received at the supervision meeting, were because of sex and created an intimidating environment. It rejected the allegation that Ms Sibanda had spread the sexual rumours because there was no direct evidence of that.

On working time, the tribunal found three in-time breaches of the 11-hour rest-between-shifts entitlement and held that the respondent's working arrangements often prevented 20-minute rest breaks during long shifts, although earlier breaches were out of time. The victimisation claim was dismissed because the claimant said at the outset that she was no longer pursuing it. The parties agreed £933.20 for unpaid holiday pay, unpaid shifts, and the training deduction, and judgment was entered for that sum.