Case 1600445/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G. Vivers v Powys County Council HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600445/2019
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms S Atkinson, Ms B. Currie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G. Vivers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Vivers made a protected disclosure only on 18 December 2018, when she submitted a grievance to Powys County Council's acting chief executive on 22 December 2018. That grievance raised concerns about void clearances and alleged failures relating to health and safety, waste disposal, needle sticks, disposal and storage of items, sales of clearance items, data breaches, and concealment. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that she had made protected disclosures on 31 October 2016, 1 August 2018 or 8 November 2018.
The tribunal accepted that Ms Vivers and Mr Holt had genuine long-standing concerns about void clearance practice, and that Mr Holt had been advising the department about health and safety issues from 2016. It found, however, that Mr Holt's advice and emails were not disclosures made by the claimant, and that the 1 August 2018 corridor conversation with Mr Pinney, through Mr Hutchison, was not a disclosure by or on behalf of Ms Vivers that Mr Pinney understood as such. The tribunal also found that the difficulties between Ms Vivers and Mr Hammond were present from early in her appointment and were part of a dysfunctional working relationship rather than being caused by whistleblowing.
The tribunal found that some of the treatment complained of was detrimental, including Mr Hammond's access to the claimant's personal file, his email limiting training, and Mr Rawbone's disclosure of the final written warning to colleagues. It nevertheless held that those acts were not done on the ground that Ms Vivers had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal also found that R referred the December 2018 grievance into internal audit and that this was an appropriate response to the disclosure.
Because the claimant's only protected disclosure was made in December 2018, the tribunal held that detriment complaints relating to events before 12 November 2018 were out of time in the absence of a series of similar acts. The claim was dismissed in full.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made one protected disclosure only, in her grievance dated 18 December 2018 handed to the acting CEO on 22 December 2018. It rejected alleged protected disclosures on 31 October 2016, 1 August 2018 and 8 November 2018. The claim failed because none of the proven detrimental treatment was done on the ground of the protected disclosure, and detriment complaints relating to events before 12 November 2018 were also held out of time in the absence of a qualifying series. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- ss.48(3)(a)-(b) ERA 1996
- reasonable belief in the public interest
- materially influenced
- series of similar acts / not reasonably practicable
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.
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.