Ms S Jones v St Mark’s Pre-School — 2023

The claimant worked for St Mark’s Pre-School from September 2021, in the Blue Dragons room. Her claim form alleged disability discrimination, detriment for making protected disclosures, and dismissal because of protected disclosures. At a hearing on 21 March 2023 she withdrew the disability discrimination claim; the tribunal recorded that it was dismissed. The tribunal then considered whether any of her emails or letters amounted to protected disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996.

The tribunal considered the claimant’s emails of 18 November 2021, 6 December 2021, 16 December 2021, and 13 January 2022. It accepted that the claimant disclosed information and that she believed the matters were in the public interest, but held that none of the communications reasonably tended to show that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being, or was likely to be endangered. On that basis, none of them were protected disclosures. The tribunal also cited Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth, Dray Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald, Fecitt v NHS Manchester, Panayiotou v Kernaghan, and Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd in its legal analysis.

On detriment, the tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant was shouted at or screamed at at the grievance hearing on 28 February 2022, and found that the grievance process was carried out impartially and effectively. It found that Mr Egan’s rejection of the claimant’s concerns was his genuine view and not influenced by any disclosures. The tribunal found that the letter from Trethowans solicitors dated 18 January 2022 would have been a detriment because it was intimidating, but any complaint about that letter was presented outside the primary time limit and there was no basis to extend time.

On dismissal, the tribunal accepted Mr Egan’s evidence that he dismissed the claimant because he considered the staffing situation, sickness absence, morale problems, and lack of return-to-work engagement meant the situation was not sustainable. It found that the alleged disclosures were not the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claims were therefore dismissed.