Miss J Bailey v Casino 36 Ltd — 2018

Miss J Bailey was employed by Casino 36 Ltd from 2013 and became Compliance Officer and Money Laundering Reporting Officer on 1 November 2017. The tribunal found she was appointed on the understanding that she was inexperienced in the role and would receive role-specific training and support, but that she did not initially receive meaningful compliance training, did not receive adequate mentoring from Craig Dobson, and was not given a job description or clear supervision. The tribunal also accepted that Mr Dobson called her a "fat bird" on or around 31 October 2017 and found that comment was related to sex and created a degrading, humiliating and offensive environment, but the harassment claim later failed on time limit grounds.

From January to May 2018 the claimant made a series of disclosures to Mr Dobson and Mr Ballard about compliance concerns, including enhanced due diligence, free bets, customer source-of-funds concerns, and customers gambling large sums of money with income that did not appear to match their play. The tribunal held that the disclosures on 2 January, 19 January, 15 March, 20 March, 3 May, 9 May, 11 May and around 22 and 30 May were protected disclosures made in the public interest, but that the June compliance report and the grievance complaint about a job description were not protected disclosures. It also found that the claimant's concerns were credible and reasonable in light of the Gambling Commission material before the tribunal.

The tribunal found detriments in the respondent's treatment of the claimant after the disclosures, including the probation extension on 4 or 9 May 2018, the detailed criticism letter of 9 June 2018, the attempt on 28 June 2018 to persuade her to step down from the compliance role, the decision on 10 July 2018 to remove her from the role and return her to Gaming Manager, and the subsequent handling of matters on appeal. It rejected the separate complaint that the initial failure to provide support and training was caused by protected disclosures because that omission predated the first disclosure, but held that the other detriments were materially influenced by the claimant's disclosures. On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence, amounted to a repudiatory breach, and that the claimant resigned in response to it, so constructive dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 succeeded.

The harassment claims related to sex were found to be out of time because the final alleged act was by the end of May 2018 and the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims. Remedy was left to a further hearing.