Steve Harries v Bath College — 2023

Steve Harries, a lecturer at Bath College, resigned on 30 March 2021 after a series of disputes about HE teaching, a grievance about HE letters on his HR file, suspension, an occupational health referral, and the handling of his concerns about the HE provision. The tribunal found that he made three protected disclosures: on 17 July 2018 to Paul Gilmore about assessments being dumbed down, failure to mark work, and a learner complaint; on 5 January 2021 to Rachel Matthews about de-skilling, exam cheating and fraudulent communications; and on 14 January 2021 to Clair Beaty-Pownall about pressure arising from the respondent's stance on where the concerns should be taken. It rejected the other alleged disclosures.

On detriment, the tribunal held that two limited matters amounted to detriments: the placing of LC's 18 July 2018 email on the claimant's HR file, and the respondent's failure to address Disclosure 1 at the time. It found, however, that neither was done because the claimant had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal rejected the complaints about delay in the grievance process, the grievance outcome, the suspension, and the proposed occupational health referral. It found that the grievance outcome was favourable to the claimant in material respects, including removal of the HE letters from the file and recommendations to review HE provision and related processes.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It held that the HR-file documents had reasonable and proper cause, that the grievance handling and outcome were not unfair, that the suspension was for a misconduct investigation about excessive emails and not for whistleblowing, and that the occupational health point did not amount to a breach or a last straw. The tribunal also found that, even if the later points had been capable of amounting to a last straw, the claimant affirmed the contract by waiting until 30 March 2021 to resign after the position had crystallised by 3 February 2021.

The tribunal dismissed the notice pay claim and recorded that the holiday pay claim was withdrawn at the final hearing. It also said that, had the detriment claim succeeded, it would in any event have been out of time because the relevant acts were in 2018 and the claim was not presented within the section 48 ERA 1996 period.