Case 2207465/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2207465/2020
- Decision date
- 4 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms L Moreton, Ms C Marsters
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Service Charge Manager on a fixed-term basis and the case arose out of delays in preparing service charge statements during 2020. The tribunal found that the earlier July and August complaints were about delay, workload and communication with the Leasehold Property Managers, and did not amount to qualifying protected disclosures. It accepted that the grievance submitted on 8 September 2020 did contain a protected disclosure about inaccurate service charge statements and possible breaches of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
On the automatic unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed when his fixed-term employment ended, but the principal reason was not the protected disclosure. It found the decision was driven by the return of Phil Hamlet to the substantive role and by the breakdown in the working relationship between the claimant and Mrs Slade after the disciplinary process. The tribunal also found that Mrs Slade was not personally aware of the protected disclosure when the non-renewal decision was made, so the s.103A claim failed.
On the detriment claim, the tribunal held that several alleged detriments either occurred before the protected disclosure or were not caused by it. It found that the grievance was unreasonably left without an outcome and that the omission of the 1 July note from the investigation report was a detriment, but concluded that those failures related to the grievance's unequal-treatment and discrimination elements rather than the protected disclosure, which was being dealt with separately by Mr Hill. The tribunal therefore dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim.
The direct discrimination claims under race and religion or belief also failed. The tribunal accepted that suspension, removal from duties and consideration for gross misconduct were less favourable treatment than a hypothetical comparator might have expected, but it found no facts from which race or religion or belief could be inferred to have been a cause. It noted that the claimant later obtained higher-paid employment and suffered no financial loss, and no compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the grievance of 8 September 2020 contained a protected disclosure, but found the claimant was not dismissed because of it; the non-renewal was because Phil Hamlet had returned to his substantive role and because the working relationship with Mrs Slade had broken down. Mrs Slade was not personally aware of the protected disclosure when the non-renewal decision was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996. The tribunal found some alleged treatment pre-dated the only qualifying protected disclosure, and other matters were not caused by it. It accepted that the grievance was unreasonably left without an outcome and that the 1 July note was omitted from the investigation report, but held those matters were not materially influenced by the protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010. The tribunal accepted that suspension, removal from duties and being considered for gross misconduct were less favourable treatment, but found no facts from which race could be inferred to be a cause. The claim therefore failed at the burden of proof stage. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion or belief discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010. The tribunal accepted that suspension, removal from duties and being considered for gross misconduct were less favourable treatment, but found no facts from which religion or belief could be inferred to be a cause. The claim therefore failed at the burden of proof stage. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Western Union Payment Services UK Ltd v Anastasiou
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir
- Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- Dahou v Serco Ltd
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.