- IN PERSON (ASSISTED BY MCKENZIE FRIEND – MS A IBRU) FOR THE v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal heard the claim in Bristol in February 2024 and considered whether the claimant's dismissal on 16 February 2022 was automatically unfair because she had made protected disclosures, and whether she had been discriminated against because of disability. It accepted that she had contracted Covid-19 in late August 2021, had later been diagnosed with post-Covid syndrome/long Covid, and had symptoms including fatigue and brain fog. However, when applying the disability definition as at the dismissal date, the tribunal held that the evidence then available did not allow it to conclude that the impairment was long term, because any prognosis in February 2022 would have been speculation. It therefore found that she was not disabled at the material time for the purposes of the dismissal claim, and it also rejected the suggestion that she was separately disabled by a mental health condition.

On the protected disclosure allegations, the claimant relied on three matters: concern about trustee meeting costs, concern about rent paid for accommodation for a member of staff's spouse, and bullying allegations. The tribunal held that the first two matters were expressions of disagreement or fairness concerns rather than disclosures of information tending to show a breach of legal obligation, and it was not satisfied that the claimant had a reasonable belief that any breach was being concealed. As to bullying, the tribunal was not satisfied that there had been earlier disclosures in the form alleged, and it held that the specific November 2021 bullying allegation did not of itself tend to show that anyone's health and safety was being or was likely to be endangered.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant's dismissal resulted from a genuine restructure following the Bespoke HR bullying investigation, which found a significant breakdown in the working relationship and recommended a review of roles and management structure. It found that the respondent moved away from a single-point management model to a collaborative leadership team and that the Operations Manager role no longer existed. On that basis, it held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was redundancy arising from restructure, not any protected disclosure, and it also rejected the case that the dismissal was caused by the claimant's need to work from home or her inability to commute. The tribunal therefore dismissed both claims.