Case 2302605/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Smith v South Thames Colleges Group — 2024

Case reference: 2302605/2022
Decision date: 16 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ramsden With
Venue: London South
Panel members: Mrs J Clewlow, Ms N O'Hare

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Smith

Respondent

South Thames Colleges Group

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant was dismissed following misconduct allegations relating to interactions with students and comments about race and slavery. The tribunal found that conduct was the reason for dismissal, that the respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds, that it carried out a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint and the automatic unfair dismissal complaints were dismissed.

The tribunal found that the claimant had made protected disclosures about dust extraction and pigeon faeces. It rejected the argument that those disclosures, health and safety functions, or trade union activities were the principal reason for dismissal, but found that Disclosures 1 and 2 were a material influence on the earlier reassignment of his duties away from carpentry to plumbing and brickwork.

At remedy, the tribunal found the protected disclosure detriment complaint was in time and awarded compensation for injury to feelings. It placed the injury in the lower band and awarded 5500 gross, with no separate award for other compensation and no ACAS uplift or reduction.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Ordinary unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Automatic unfair dismissal said to be because of protected disclosures under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Automatic unfair dismissal said to be because of health and safety activities or functions under section 100(1)(a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Trade union	Automatic unfair dismissal said to be because of taking part in independent trade union activities under section 152(1)(b) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Protected disclosure detriment under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded; the remedy judgment awarded 5500 gross for injury to feelings.	Upheld	—	£5,500

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £5,500; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

21 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.