Miss v Carradine AND St Monica Trust Company Limited — 2024

Miss Carradine worked as a domiciliary care administrator for St Monica Trust Company Limited and raised concerns in August and September 2022 about resident A's manual handling arrangements and about resident B's care. The tribunal held that the disclosures made on 10 August 2022 to Mr Dicks, BANES and the CQC were protected disclosures, and that the later September disclosures about altered or changed documents and continuing concerns were also protected.

On the 10 August disclosure to Mr Dicks, the tribunal found that the claimant's comments went beyond a bare allegation. In the context of a carer having hurt her back, the stand aid, and the discussions that day, it was reasonable for her to believe the information tended to show a risk to health and safety and a breach of safeguarding obligations. The tribunal also accepted that she reasonably believed the disclosure was in the public interest.

For the BANES disclosures, the tribunal accepted that the claimant reasonably believed the local authority safeguarding unit was an appropriate body because the respondent's whistleblowing policy listed BANES alongside the CQC, and because the concerns related to safeguarding and workplace health and safety. For the September disclosures, the tribunal accepted that the claimant reasonably believed documents had been altered or added after her earlier report and that the allegations were substantially true for the purposes of the statutory test.

The detriment claim failed. The tribunal rejected the allegation that Ms Harris-Brandi's 26 August report misrepresented or discredited the claimant, finding instead that it reflected the outcome of an internal investigation and her own interpretation of the material. It accepted that reduced contact from Mr Dicks, removal from the WhatsApp group, and restriction of email and system access were detriments, but found they were not materially influenced by the protected disclosures. It found the reduced contact was to allow an impartial investigation, and that the access restrictions were a wellbeing measure while the claimant was off sick and continuing to access work systems. The allegation that the grievance outcome declined to investigate the customer and care-file issues was also dismissed because those matters were already being addressed externally by the CQC and BANES. The laptop-access allegation was withdrawn.

The claimant resigned on 7 December 2022. The tribunal held that, because it had not found any detriment caused by the protected disclosures, there was no fundamental breach of contract or breach of trust and confidence to support a constructive dismissal claim. The automatically constructive unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was therefore dismissed. No award was made.