In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Mrs Ashton had worked for the respondent since 1991 and moved from a teaching assistant/learning mentor role to exam invigilator work in September 2008 without a break in continuous employment. The tribunal accepted that she regularly worked as an invigilator over the years and rejected the respondent's account that her work was being gradually wound down from spring 2018 because of conduct or capability concerns. It found there was no reliable evidence of any documented concerns, no effective instruction to reduce her work, and no persuasive evidence of the alleged meeting with the Principal.

The tribunal found that on 12 February 2019 Mrs Ashton wrote, and on 13 February 2019 handed in, a letter about the safety of the temporary matting in the sports hall. It accepted that she did so with the support of other invigilators and that the letter disclosed information tending to show that the health or safety of individuals had been or was likely to be endangered. The tribunal also accepted that she reasonably believed the situation remained unsafe and that the disclosure was made in the public interest. It rejected the respondent's arguments that the matter was already known or that the Whistleblowing Policy had not been followed.

On causation, the tribunal found that after the letter was handed in the respondent did not provide Mrs Ashton with any further work, did not respond to her emails, did not invite her to the 13 May 2019 invigilators' meeting, and later did not send her the new contract issued to other invigilators. Taken together, that conduct was held to be a sufficiently unequivocal indication that the respondent had brought her employment to an end. The effective date of termination was found to be 13 May 2019.

The tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure in the February 2019 letter, so the claim under section 103A ERA 1996 succeeded and the dismissal was automatically unfair. Having reached that conclusion, the tribunal said it was not necessary to consider the section 100 health and safety dismissal claim, the detriment claim, or the ordinary unfair dismissal claim further. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a further hearing.