In person For the v Mr C Ocloo (employment consultant) — 2024

Miss Kopec worked as a jewellery workshop technician from 9 March 2020 until her summary dismissal on 10 November 2022. The tribunal found that the dispute arose after grievances by Ms Y and Ms X, including concerns about the claimant's repeated advice and products sent to Ms X about cancer treatment, and an incident at a 13 September 2022 meeting about recruiting an assistant. It held that the claimant held a protected philosophical belief in a healthy natural way of living free from allopathic drugs and experimental injections, but rejected her disability case: PTSD was not proved, anxiety was not proved, and the stress episodes shown in the medical records were situation-specific and not long-term. It also held that a number of allegations were out of time, including parts of the whistleblowing, harassment/direct discrimination and section 10 claims, and that no extension of time was justified.

On protected disclosures, the tribunal rejected the alleged disclosures about the vaccine programme, PCR tests and Ms Y. It found the January 2021 vaccine conversation was an expression of opinion and conspiracy theory rather than disclosure of information, that the alleged ethylene oxide PCR disclosure was not proved on the evidence, and that the allegations about Ms Y made in the 7 September 2022 meeting were unsupported and not made with a reasonable belief in criminality, illegality or danger to health and safety. The 15 March 2022 WhatsApp messages about PCR tests were capable of amounting to disclosure of information, but the tribunal held that the claimant's belief was not reasonable and that the public-interest requirement was not satisfied. Accordingly, both the protected disclosure detriment claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct: the respondent believed the claimant had bullied Ms X, bullied Ms Y, and behaved unprofessionally at the 13 September 2022 meeting, and that belief was based on a reasonable investigation by Ms Hallewell and Ms Cozma, followed by disciplinary hearings chaired by Ms Eden and an appeal before Mr Nawaz. It held that the investigation, hearing process and sanction were within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and British Home Stores v Burchell. In relation to the Ms X allegations, the tribunal also found that the claimant's repeated sending of advice, books and products was a manifestation of her protected belief, but dismissal was justified as a proportionate means of preventing ongoing bullying of a vulnerable employee under Higgs v Farmor's School.

The harassment and direct discrimination claims based on religion or belief and race failed. The tribunal found that the comments made by Ms Eden about culture during the October 2022 disciplinary meeting were aimed at helping the claimant explain perceived aggression, not at violating dignity or treating her less favourably because of Polish nationality or belief. It also found that the vaccine, PCR, workload, pay, recruitment and suspension complaints were explained by ordinary workplace and contractual reasons, not by race or belief. The breach of contract claims failed because there was no contractual right to first-aider training, no unilateral variation of terms and the contract allowed suspension on full pay; the section 10 accompaniment claim failed because the 15 September 2022 meeting was a suspension meeting, not a disciplinary or grievance hearing, and no request to be accompanied was made.