IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2023

Emil Kalinowski worked as a Learning Support Worker for Elidyr Communities Trust Limited from 2021 until his dismissal on 15 February 2023. He brought claims alleging detriment and automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. The tribunal held that none of the alleged disclosures amounted to protected disclosures within the meaning of the ERA 1996, because several lacked sufficient factual content, some did not involve a reasonable belief in wrongdoing, some were not made in the public interest, and one alleged verbal disclosure was not found to have happened at all.

The tribunal dealt with the alleged September 2022 disclosures individually. It rejected the complaint about low staffing levels because the Claimant’s understanding of the staffing risk assessment was mistaken and volunteers counted towards the staffing minimum. It rejected the medication and meal-plan allegations because the Claimant did not hold a reasonable belief that management had acted contrary to the GP instruction or that the meal plan breached legal obligations or endangered health and safety. The emails requesting a change of investigator were not disclosures of information and were not made in the public interest. The house-move complaint was found to be personal in nature and too vague, while the staffing and Resident 2 complaint of 18 September 2022 failed because the Claimant could not reasonably believe there had been a breach of the staffing assessment or Resident 2’s care plan. The tribunal also found no proof of the alleged verbal disclosure concerning an antipsychotic drug.

Because no protected disclosures were made, the detriment claim failed. In any event, the tribunal found that the suspension, loss of overtime while suspended, revocation of email access, handling of grievances, refusal of the house move, and the length of the suspension were not caused by the Claimant’s complaints. The tribunal found the Respondent had investigated the complaints under its grievance procedure and had referred matters to the local authority safeguarding team. The dismissal claim also failed: the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was gross misconduct arising from the Claimant’s failure to report that three residents had not received medication on the evening of 26 September 2022, not the making of protected disclosures. No remedy was awarded.