In person For the v Respondent — 2017

Miss Mowe Saha worked in Capita plc’s Group Management Accounts team from February 2014. The tribunal accepted that her technical work was effective, but found that her communications with supervisors and business contacts became progressively difficult: she regularly challenged instructions, escalated issues beyond her line manager, and rejected repeated informal criticism about the tone and length of her emails. After a grievance process in 2015, the relationship with Ms Dreyer remained strained. When the claimant emailed on 1 December 2015 saying she would not work the extended year-end hours, Mr Mayall later made a without prejudice offer of £10,000 to leave. After further escalation to Mr Greatorex, the Chief Executive and two Chief Operating Officers, the claimant was dismissed on 15 December 2015 for an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship.

The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely breakdown of the working relationship, and accepted that this was the genuine reason. It also found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for that belief. The dismissal was nonetheless unfair because the claimant was never formally told that her behaviour was unacceptable and that her job was at risk, she was not invited to a dismissal meeting with notice and the chance to be accompanied, and the appeal was inadequate because Mr Terry did not investigate beyond the claimant’s correspondence and did not speak to Mr Mayall. The tribunal found a 25% uplift should apply for breach of the ACAS Code, recorded that the claimant’s conduct caused her dismissal and justified 80% reductions for contributory fault and conduct before dismissal, and found there was an 80% chance she would have been fairly dismissed four weeks later even if fair procedures had been followed. No final monetary award was made in this judgment; a remedy hearing was listed for 20 April 2017.

The whistleblowing claims failed because the tribunal found none of the alleged disclosures were protected disclosures. The 1 December 2015 email about year-end hours did disclose information, but the claimant did not reasonably believe it showed that health or safety was endangered, and she did not reasonably believe it was made in the public interest. The 7 December 2015 email about the £10,000 offer was not treated as information capable of showing blackmail, bribery, or a legal breach, and was again found not to have been made in the public interest. The item B reference to £30m of unsupported prepayments was treated as a reference to work the claimant had done, not as a disclosure of wrongdoing, and the tribunal did not accept that she reasonably believed it showed false accounting or a breach of legal obligation.

The remaining claims also failed. The Working Time Regulations detriment claim under s45A ERA 1996 failed because the proposed 2016 year-end working pattern was found not to breach the regulations, and the claimant’s statutory-right allegation under s104 ERA 1996 was not an allegation of a past infringement. The health and safety claims under ss44 and 100 ERA 1996 failed because the proposed hours were not found to amount to circumstances of danger, and the tribunal did not accept that the claimant reasonably believed they were harmful or potentially harmful in the relevant legal sense.