Ms. Z Windle v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and 3 others — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant, a professional interpreter engaged through Capita, fell within the extended definition of "worker" in section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for four of the five disclosures relied on. It accepted that the claimant had made protected disclosures concerning the use of unqualified interpreters, contract management and related public-interest concerns. The first disclosure on 29 March 2019 was made before she had been introduced by Capita to the respondents, but the tribunal said this was not significant because no separate detriment claim arose from that disclosure alone.

The tribunal found that making the complaint to the NRPSI was a detriment, and that requiring Capita not to use the claimant until she obtained NPPV3 clearance was also a detriment. It did not find detriment in the redacted dissemination of the claimant's email to the NRPSI, the forwarding of the PC Sanders email, the alleged failure to cooperate with the NRPSI investigation, the internal and external email correspondence about vetting, or the fourth respondent keeping Superintendent Humpage informed.

On causation, the tribunal held that the protected disclosures did not materially influence the detriments. It accepted the respondents' evidence that the NRPSI complaint was made because of concerns about confidentiality, possible risk to an investigation, and later information about the claimant's comments on going off-contract. It also found that the temporary removal of the claimant from bookings was because she lacked the NPPV3 vetting required by the framework agreement. The whistleblowing detriment claim was therefore dismissed.