Miss C Barron v Methodist Homes for the Aged — 2019

Miss C Barron, a care worker at the respondent’s Leeds scheme, made five protected disclosures that the respondent conceded had been made on 12 October 2017, 14 January 2018, 22 January 2018, 9 February 2018 and 12 February 2018. The tribunal excluded a number of additional alleged detriments from the case and approached the hearing as a claim for whistleblowing detriment and constructive unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent did not give her face-to-face feedback that her concerns had been redressed, but it also rejected much of her account as to hostile treatment by colleagues and management.

On the detriment case, the tribunal found that many of the incidents relied on were ordinary workplace interactions or operational responses, not treatment on the ground that she had made protected disclosures. It accepted some factual complaints, including a failure to pass on care information about resident X after his return from hospital and the insecure handling of the claimant’s private documents, and it found that arranging grievance and investigation meetings immediately after lengthy night shifts, when her fatigue was known, was conduct without reasonable and proper cause. It also found that her belief that nothing was being done about the medication concerns was reasonable because she was not told that action was being taken in the background.

The whistleblowing detriment claim succeeded only on the Fire Brigade incident. After a fire alarm on 11 March 2018, the tribunal found that Mr Thornton had received the claimant’s written report and that, over the following days, he told her she was to be investigated for calling the Fire Brigade, when the real focus should have been the conduct of another employee and fire panel training. It held that this was done on the ground that she had made protected disclosures, and in any event it was conduct without reasonable and proper cause and likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. The respondent’s statutory defence that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent detriment failed.

For dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent’s conduct cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence, including the failure to pass on care information, the insecure handling of documents, the scheduling of meetings after exhausting night shifts, and the Fire Brigade investigation. It found that the claimant resigned because of those breaches and that the Fire Brigade investigation was the final straw. The constructive unfair dismissal complaint was therefore well founded. This was a liability judgment and it recorded no monetary award.