Mrs B Esdaile (in person) For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant worked for the respondent in Band 7 roles before moving in October 2021 to a Band 6 role in NEW CMHT while continuing AMHP work for Wiltshire Council. The tribunal found that later management concerns about her AMHP roster access, secondment arrangements, TOIL and expenses were genuine operational issues and were not shown to be used as a tool to target her.

It rejected the alleged protected disclosures said to have been made on 5 October 2022 and 7 November 2022. The 5 October email about social work practice and Ms Sturgess was held not to disclose health and safety concerns or a wider public interest, and the evidence did not support the claimant's account of what was said at the 7 November team meeting, nor a reasonable belief that the comments concerned health and safety or service provision.

The tribunal also rejected the reliance on the 14 June 2023 disciplinary hearing statement and the grievance of the same day as protected disclosures. It held those matters were personal complaints about the disciplinary process and suspension rather than disclosures of information tending to show legal breach or health and safety risk. It accepted that the 2 July 2023 email could be understood as expressing a personal concern about returning safely, but it was not made in the public interest.

On the employment events, the tribunal found the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to review the AMHP arrangement, to remove the claimant's roster-editing access, to query the unusual expenses claims, and then to suspend her after counter-fraud advice and identified inconsistencies between the claims and Trust records. It accepted that the investigation took longer than planned because of leave, witness availability and the need to return interview notes, but not through design.

The grievance and appeal were rejected because the grievance policy did not generally cover normal disciplinary action unless there was a demonstrable flaw in the disciplinary process, and the tribunal found the grievance manager and appeal manager were entitled to reach the decisions they did after considering the disciplinary materials. It also found that the phased return proposals put to the claimant were reasonable attempts to facilitate a return to work, and that she did not identify a concrete plan that would make that return safe. Standing back, the tribunal held there was no fundamental breach of contract and no protected-disclosure detriment, so the detriment and constructive unfair dismissal claims were dismissed.