Case 2301820/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Yvette Simons v London Borough of Merton — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301820/2021
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr Singh, Mr Wilby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Yvette Simons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Yvette Simons brought complaints of detriment for making protected disclosures against the London Borough of Merton. The Tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Burge and lay members Mr Singh and Mr Wilby, heard the case on 20 to 23 May 2024 and recorded a unanimous decision. It found that two detriment complaints were well-founded: the Respondent's delay in lifting the Claimant's suspension from 28 September 2020 to 30 December 2020, and its delay in finalising the safeguarding report.
The remaining detriment complaints were dismissed. Those included complaints about scrutiny over service-user money, supervision at Morrisons, instructions about ordering the PC, questioning about the medication error report, the suspension itself and how it was communicated, grievance handling and delay, non-provision of grievance documents, the timing and outcome of safeguarding investigations, the absence of written safeguarding outcomes, the continued suspension to 22 February 2021, the proposed move to a new workplace, lack of proactive return-to-work steps, and extension of probation. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not record any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal found two detriment complaints well-founded: delay in lifting the Claimant's suspension from 28 September 2020 to 30 December 2020, and delay in finalising the safeguarding report. The remaining detriment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43F ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.