In person v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, a Nigerian support worker employed from 27 February 2023, brought claims arising from events in April to June 2023. The tribunal relied heavily on contemporaneous records, including rotas, supervision notes, grievance material, and the respondent's probationary documents. It found that several of the claimant's factual assertions were not supported by the evidence, while others were only partly accurate.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the claimant did not make the pleaded oral disclosures to management about resident abuse. It held that the 30 April 2023 email to Jeff Firth was not a qualifying disclosure because it was mainly about the claimant's own position and omitted key information he had given to the CQC. Although the 29 April email to the CQC was treated as a disclosure to the employer under section 43C(2), the tribunal held that his belief that it was made in the public interest was not objectively reasonable. On that basis, the unfair constructive whistleblowing dismissal claim and the whistleblowing detriment complaints failed.

The race discrimination and harassment allegations also failed. The tribunal rejected the assertions that staff were racially grouped on the rota, that the WhatsApp group was withheld because of race, that Makaton training was allocated on a racial basis, or that visa-status enquiries were discriminatory. It found the claimant was subject to firm management as a probationer, but not race-based treatment, and it rejected the allegation that racial slurs were used.

The victimisation claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant's email of 15 May 2023 alleging victimisation was a protected act and was a material influence on Mr Firth's decision to dismiss him on 16 May 2023. It said that the dismissal was influenced by the dietary-requirements incidents, the pub incident, and the claimant's discrimination and victimisation complaints. The unlawful deduction claim for a £2 bus ticket failed for lack of proof, and the tribunal noted that other pay issues had been settled. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the tribunal said a one-day remedy hearing would follow and that injury to feelings and interest were likely issues.