Representing herself For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a support worker at Sturts Community Trust, raised concerns over time about J's scratches and other marks, including a report to her manager, a body map, a conversation with Jon Saunders, a letter dated 28 October 2018, a call to Dorset County Council Adult Safeguarding, a meeting with CAB, and a later call to the CQC. The tribunal accepted some of those disclosures as protected disclosures within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but rejected other alleged disclosures and many of the claimant's later factual assertions about events as unreliable or exaggerated.

On the whistleblowing detriment claim, most of the alleged detriments were dismissed. The tribunal found that many of the respondent's actions were driven by the claimant's conduct, the grievance and disciplinary process, or administrative error, rather than by her disclosures. By majority, however, it held that Mr Woodward's decision not to carry out an investigatory stage before moving to disciplinary proceedings was materially influenced by the claimant's disclosure to Adult Safeguarding on 13 November 2018, and that this amounted to a detriment on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal was unanimous that, even on that footing, the claimant would still have been dismissed.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that Ms Westerman genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of the disciplinary allegations concerning keeping photographs of J without consent and approaching J's mother directly, and it found that the dismissal was caused by those matters rather than by the protected disclosures. It also held that Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti did not require the decision-maker's motive to be attributed to the employer on the facts found.

The indirect discrimination claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the PCP of conducting the disciplinary and appeal processes in English put Polish nationals at a particular disadvantage, and that the claimant herself was disadvantaged because the late notice of the hearing meant she could not reasonably arrange an interpreter in time. The respondent's aim of concluding disciplinary matters without delay was accepted as legitimate, but the tribunal held that proceeding in English without allowing sufficient time to secure interpretation was not proportionate on the facts. No financial penalty order was made, and the case was listed for a remedy hearing.