Miss S Codling v Costello’s (Malton) Ltd — 2022

The claimant worked as a Barista/Shop Assistant for Costello’s (Malton) Ltd from 18 May 2021 to 6 August 2021. The tribunal found that she made two protected disclosures about unlabeled Bakewell tarts: a Facebook Messenger message on 9 July 2021 and an email to the owner on 12 July 2021. It held that both communications contained factual information, were made in the public interest, and reasonably tended to show a breach of legal obligation and a health and safety risk linked to food labelling.

Most of the alleged detriments were rejected on the facts. The tribunal found that Miss Neill did not ignore the claimant, did not unfairly scrutinise her work, did not prevent her from taking stock, and that Ms Horsfall did not inaccurately record the probation review meeting. It did find that Miss Neill dismissed what the claimant said about a colleague needing help because of dyslexia, and that on 31 July 2021 Miss Neill asked the claimant to leave before the end of her shift. However, the tribunal held that those matters were not materially influenced by the protected disclosures. The response on the dyslexia issue was found to be motivated by a wish to spare the colleague embarrassment, and the request to leave was linked to the claimant’s conduct and the disagreement in the café.

The dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal accepted evidence from the respondent’s witnesses and the contemporaneous messages that the claimant did not always follow instructions, was not working effectively as part of a team, and had been argumentative towards Miss Neill. It found that Mrs Costello decided to terminate the employment because of conduct, teamwork and instruction-following concerns, with the 31 July 2021 incident forming part of that background, rather than because the claimant had made protected disclosures. The tribunal therefore dismissed both the whistleblowing detriment complaint and the automatic unfair dismissal complaint.