Ms H Higgins, counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

Miss J O'Boy started work for British Transport Police in September 2010 and was promoted to Field Intelligence Officer in 2014. After she applied to City of London Police in August 2017, a hair test was reported positive for cocaine, leading BTP to open a disciplinary investigation in October 2017 and to remove her from normal intelligence duties. The tribunal accepted that the later LGC B sample result showed cocaine at 491 pg/mg and benzylecgonine at 150 pg/mg, that AlphaBiolabs later reported negative cocaine results for segments 1 to 8 but a positive benzylecgonine result in segment 9, and that the respondent then obtained further expert opinions from Marcus Donohue and further laboratory responses.

The whistleblowing claim was based on the grievance lodged on 1 February 2018, in which the claimant complained about the handling of the drug tests and the disciplinary process. The tribunal held that those complaints were disclosures of information and that the claimant's belief that they tended to show a breach of legal obligation was reasonable, but it found that she did not reasonably believe the disclosures were made in the public interest. The tribunal said the concerns were about her own treatment rather than the wider public, even though she had raised genuine concerns about the process. For that reason the protected disclosure claim failed, and the alleged detriments were in any event found to have been driven by the PSD investigation and the Police Barred List process rather than by any protected disclosure.

On the constructive dismissal claims, the tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for removing the claimant from her normal duties, placing her on restricted administrative work, asking occupational health about drugs, and relying initially on the City of London Police intelligence and sample B testing. It found that the meeting on 2 January 2018 was intended as a welfare and risk-assessment conversation, not part of the formal investigation, and that no request to be accompanied at that meeting was proven. The tribunal also accepted that the respondent could reasonably await the B sample and pursue further expert enquiries rather than take a fresh hair sample immediately.

The tribunal accepted that some matters could have been handled better, including the failure to disclose the laboratory and expert reports to the claimant during the investigation and the wording of the email saying that her grievance would not be dealt with until the PSD process was complete. However, it held that these matters did not amount to repudiatory breaches, either on their own or together. It found that the grievance was held back because the respondent considered it might prejudice the ongoing PSD investigation, and that the Police Barred List entry followed the applicable 2017 Regulations. Because there was no repudiatory breach, there was no constructive dismissal, no dismissal for asserting a statutory right, and no ordinary unfair dismissal. The claimant resigned without notice on 11 June 2018, and the tribunal dismissed all claims. No remedy was awarded.