Claimant v Nixon v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 2021

Mrs Nixon was an agency social worker and team manager in the West service of the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. On 12 September 2019 she emailed Cindy Hunter raising a concern said to have been reported to her by a social worker that a team manager was racially discriminating against Muslim/Asian workers. The tribunal held that this email was a protected act and that a later anonymous letter dated 6 October 2019, which it found was substantially authored by the claimant, was also a protected act and a protected disclosure.

The tribunal found the September concern was investigated informally by Ms Hunter and then revisited by Ms Leahy, with no substantiated finding of race discrimination and no further action beyond improving relationships. It found the 6 October letter contained materially misleading and untrue statements, including presenting itself as a collective letter from the whole West service when none of the staff had seen or approved it. The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation of the document, found her evidence on it unconvincing, and accepted that the real issue was her poor relationship with Ms Honeyman and her desire to see her removed.

After information from RH and a further internal review, the second respondent changed the references previously given for the claimant. The tribunal held the 8 January 2020 reference, and parts of the 10 March 2020 reference, were capable of amounting to detriments because they were materially worse and affected the claimant's prospects, including the loss of the North East Lincolnshire placement. However, it found there was no causal link to the protected acts or disclosures. The tribunal accepted that the second respondent's reason was his genuine belief that the 6 October letter showed dishonesty, lack of professionalism and lack of integrity, and it dismissed both the victimisation and whistleblowing complaints. It also held that the ACAS Code uplift provision in section 207A did not apply because the claimant was not an employee of the respondent.