Ms C Parnell v Diamon Blaque Agency and 1 other — 2021

Ms C Parnell was an agency worker supplied by Diamon Blaque Agency to work in London Borough of Camden's Afghan refugee Wrap Around Support service at the Raddison Hotel. Her case concerned a series of concerns she raised about Mrs K, a pregnant refugee with young children, and later about other workplace incidents. The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondents' witnesses where there were conflicts, finding the claimant's evidence confused and contradictory on material points.

The tribunal held that the claimant's mid-October 2021 discussions with Claudia Wayland about Mrs K were capable of amounting to a disclosure of information under section 43B(1)(d), but the claimant's belief that Mrs K and her children were in danger was not objectively reasonable. It found that Mrs K was in a secure hotel with 24/7 support and that the claimant had overstated the level of risk. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not disclosed, in those conversations, that the respondents were in breach of any legal obligation.

The later alleged disclosures to Chinedu Alukwu, Lea Christodoulou, Emmanuel McKen and Joseph Sawyers were not protected disclosures. The tribunal found that the conversations lacked sufficient factual content and specificity, and that the claimant did not raise matters in terms that would amount to a reasonable belief of legal breach or danger. By contrast, the tribunal found that the disclosure to Sheena Anyanwu in mid-November 2021 did amount to a protected disclosure: the claimant raised concerns about Mrs K's health and safety and that of her children, and the tribunal held that this belief was reasonably held and was made in the public interest.

The whistleblowing detriment claim nonetheless failed. The tribunal found that Ms Anyanwu's decision to end the assignment on 13 January 2022 was driven by the claimant's conduct on 16 December 2021, the incident on 29 December 2021, and the note added on 30 December 2021, not by the protected disclosure to Ms Anyanwu. It also rejected the other alleged detriments, including the allegation that the claimant was falsely told she had not recorded matters on the system, that she was excluded from work, that her name was removed from the rota before dismissal, and that she was subjected to abuse on 3 and 11 January 2022 on the ground of whistleblowing.

On time limits, the tribunal said the dismissal complaint and the rota complaint would have been in time, but most of the other allegations were out of time and no extension should be granted. However, because it found that none of the complained-of acts amounted to a detriment on the ground of protected disclosure, all complaints under section 47B ERA 1996 were dismissed.