Case 1404973/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R D’Rozario (in person) For the v Ms F Powell (solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404973/2019
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
- Panel members
- Ms J Le Vaillant, Mr C Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R D’Rozario (in person) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant made protected disclosures about out-of-date stock and food safety on 20 July 2019, 4 September 2019, 12 September 2019, 24 September 2019 and 19 April 2020. It rejected alleged protected disclosures on 18 February 2019 and 9 July 2019, but accepted that the later disclosures concerned a risk to customers and were made in the public interest.
Most of the protected disclosure detriment complaints were dismissed. The referral for a disciplinary hearing in July 2019 was found to have been driven by repeated missed out-of-date stock and the Claimant's failure to accept responsibility, and to have been decided before the first protected disclosure. The complaints about sick pay in August 2019, the holiday conversion issue, the 6 October 2019 rota/meeting issue, the December 2019 rest break, the 23 April 2020 letter, the special paid leave decision, the August 2020 sick pay issue and the transfer to Amesbury were all dismissed because the tribunal found no causal link to the protected disclosures, or no relevant disadvantage, or both.
The only whistleblowing detriment upheld was the failure to change the rota for 17 and 31 October 2019. The tribunal found that the Claimant told Mr Duffield shortly after receiving the rota that she could not start before 1500 on Thursdays, that the rota was not changed, and that the protected disclosure materially influenced that scheduling decision. The Respondent's statutory defence failed because there was no evidence of a whistleblowing policy or training capable of amounting to all reasonable steps.
The direct race discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the alleged remark that the Claimant was doing a 'crap job' was not made, that she had received a performance review in 2018, that most managers at the Salisbury store did not receive a 2019 review because of time pressures, and that there were no facts from which race discrimination could properly be inferred.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was withdrawn by the Claimant and dismissed upon withdrawal. The hearing was for liability only, and remedy was left to a separate order.
Claims and outcomes
12 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn after the Claimant confirmed she had later been paid the correct sick pay and had been allowed to roll over her holiday. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Referral for a disciplinary hearing on 20/21 July 2019; the tribunal found the decision had already been made because of repeated missed out-of-date stock and the Claimant's failure to accept responsibility. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint about sick pay for 1 to 7 August 2019; the sick note had been forwarded in early August and the shortfall was later corrected, with no link to any protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint about not converting holiday between 8 and 25 August 2019 to sick leave; the Claimant had not raised the issue with Mr Duffield at the time and the Respondent later allowed the holiday to be reclassified and rolled over. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Scheduling the meeting/shift issue for 6 October 2019 was accepted as a disadvantage, but the tribunal found no causal link to any protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 13 EqA 2010
- section 136 EqA 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- section 43B ERA 1996
- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 48(3) ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Jesudason v Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Harrow London Borough Council v Knight
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.