In person For the v Ms Walker, Barrister — 2021

Ms Paintal was employed as CEO from 22 October 2018. She sent emails on 3 and 6 November 2018 raising concerns about board succession, board diversity, policy updates, DBS checks, staff contracts and payments, and she was suspended on full pay at the meeting on 8 November 2018 while the board considered what to do next. The claims before the tribunal were a whistleblowing detriment claim under s.48(1) ERA 1996 and an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996.

Applying Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth and Parkins v Sodexho, the tribunal held that most of the matters raised in the 3 and 6 November emails were not qualifying disclosures. It found that the policy-update points reflected issues she had already been asked to address, that the succession and diversity points did not identify any legal obligation she reasonably believed had been breached, and that the funding-reserves point did not show a relevant legal breach. The tribunal was prepared to accept that she may have reasonably believed there were issues about staff contracts and payments and about DBS checks, but only in relation to one or two workers and not on the basis of the wider allegations put forward.

The tribunal found that the suspension was caused by a breakdown in the relationship between the claimant and DJ and AP, including the claimant's criticism of the board, her forthright communications, and the telephone call at the start of November, rather than because she had made protected disclosures. On dismissal, it applied Southern v Frank Charlesley and Co and found that the claimant's emails on the evening of 8 November 2018 were clear and unambiguous resignations, that they were not made in the heat of the moment, and that they were not withdrawn before the respondent accepted them on 15 November. Both whistleblowing claims were therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.