Ms K Williams v All Health Matters Limited — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures on 30 June 2017, 14 July 2017, 13 April 2018 or 16 April 2018. It preferred the respondent's evidence that she reported only that the E16 clinic was messy and that post was left unopened, rather than disclosing confidential medical information being left unsaved or on public display. Applying the section 43B ERA 1996 test, and the authorities it cited including Cavendish Munro, Kilraine and Babula, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown a reasonable belief that her statements tended to show a legal breach or a risk to health and safety. The whistleblowing detriment claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, and the tribunal also noted that detriment allegations before 11 June 2018 would have been out of time in any event.

On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent relied on some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between the claimant and Gill Monk and other management. It rejected the claimant's suggestion that the real reason was whistleblowing or cost cutting. The tribunal found that the respondent's witnesses held a genuine belief that an impasse had been reached, that internal and external mediation had been offered, and that the claimant had said she could not return to work and handed back her keys.

The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the process was procedurally flawed. The claimant was not warned that refusing mediation could lead to dismissal, and the invitation to the 5 June 2018 meeting did not warn that dismissal might follow. It did not find unfairness from the fact that different managers dealt with the grievance, dismissal and appeal, given the size of the respondent. Applying Polkey, the tribunal found that a fair process would have extended employment by two weeks and that dismissal would then have followed. It found that the claimant had wholly contributed to her dismissal by refusing mediation and not agreeing to occupational health input, so the basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 100%, resulting in no monetary award and no remedy hearing.