Ms T Brookes v National Education Union — 2025

Ms T Brookes, a solicitor, brought claims against the National Education Union arising out of her short period of employment as Regional Solicitor for the South East Region. The tribunal found that she was not disabled by hypothyroidism, although the Respondent accepted that she had other disabilities including Asperger's / ASD, dyslexia, childhood-related PTSD, depression, hearing loss and a hip injury. All claims were dismissed and the tribunal said that issues of remedy did not arise.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal identified two possible disclosures in the 22 May 2022 complaint. The allegation of potential fraud to obtain insurance was not a disclosure of information: it was unsupported speculation and lacked factual content. The statement that she was not covered by the Respondent's insurance was treated as a disclosure of information and the tribunal accepted that she believed it was in the public interest, but it found she did not believe it showed a failure to comply with a legal obligation, and in any event that belief was not reasonable on the facts given the reassurances and documents already provided to her. The protected disclosure detriment complaint also failed because the tribunal found the complaint was acknowledged and forwarded for investigation, so it was not ignored.

The automatic unfair dismissal complaint failed because the principal reason for dismissal was found to be the claimant's continued refusal to undertake the vast majority of her role, despite repeated assurances that the insurance covered the work described in her job. The tribunal found the dismissal was not caused by the whistleblowing complaint, by any alleged inability to work without adjustments, or by the claimant's association with her son's race or transgender status. It also found that concerns about the claimant's conduct, including taking the policy to an external broker and recording conversations without notice, formed part of the dismissal reasoning. Her appeal against dismissal was later upheld by Dr Bousted on 20 July 2022, but that did not alter the tribunal's findings on liability.

The direct disability discrimination and harassment complaints were rejected on the facts. The tribunal found that the first occupational health telephone consultation was initiated by the claimant, that the failed face-to-face appointment on 11 May 2022 was not the Respondent's fault because the claimant attended with her son, and that the revised assessment on 6 June 2022 was arranged in due course. It also found that Ms Fawcett did not deliberately delay the Access to Work process and did not refuse the claimant's flexible working request; instead, she had informally agreed the working hours the claimant wanted and pointed her to the flexible working policy. The conduct complained of did not amount to less favourable treatment because of disability and did not have the purpose or effect required for harassment.