Case 1601479/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Todd (formerly Ratcliffe) v Fairways Care Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601479/2019
- Decision date
- 14 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Atkinson, Ms C James
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Todd (formerly Ratcliffe)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as an Activities Coordinator at Ty Cariad Dementia Care Centre from 27 March 2019 and was dismissed on 25 April 2019. The tribunal found two protected disclosures: on her first day she told Ms Duffy that she had been left alone with residents before her DBS check came through and while she was supposed to be shadowing Ms Round; later she told Ms Round that a carer had kissed a resident on the lips and that she considered it inappropriate. Other alleged disclosures, including dirty glasses, swearing about residents and Easter eggs, were not accepted as protected disclosures.
The tribunal held that the first-day disclosure was made in the public interest and met the Kilraine threshold. It found that Ms Duffy passed on a negative version of that incident to Ms Woodruff, which portrayed the claimant in a negative light and was itself a detriment. It also found that the decision to call the claimant to a meeting on 25 April 2019 was materially influenced by that disclosure, so that detriment succeeded under s.47B ERA 1996 and the Fecitt "reason why" test. The kiss disclosure was accepted as a protected disclosure, but the tribunal did not find that it was reported onwards or that it caused any detriment.
The tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. It found that Ms Woodruff called the meeting because she had feedback that the claimant was disruptive and rude to staff, and that the dismissal followed the heated meeting because Ms Woodruff concluded the claimant was not suitable to work with vulnerable adults. The protected disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
No financial loss was found to flow from the upheld detriments because the tribunal found Ms Woodruff would have called the meeting anyway and the appeal outcome would have been the same. The only remedy was £4,000 for injury to feelings, assessed in the lower Vento band with reference to Prison Service v Johnson and the updated Vento guidance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal upheld the whistleblowing detriment claim only in part. It found that the claimant was subjected to detriment when Ms Duffy portrayed her in a negative light to Ms Woodruff and when Ms Woodruff called her to the 25 April 2019 meeting, both on the ground that she had made the protected disclosure on 27 March 2019. The tribunal rejected the remaining whistleblowing detriment allegations and did not award any financial loss beyond injury to feelings. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was Ms Woodruff's view of the claimant's conduct and suitability after the heated meeting, not the making of protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Kilraine test
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed public interest test
- s.47B ERA 1996
- Fecitt reason why test
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Ross v Eddie Stobart burden of proof
- Prison Service v Johnson
- Vento guidelines
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.