Ms Elaine Masters v London Underground Limited — 2025

The claimant relied on seven matters disclosed in an email and attached document sent to Mr Dent on 27 April 2018. The tribunal found that the claimant disclosed information, genuinely and reasonably believed the disclosures tended to show relevant failures, and genuinely and reasonably believed they were made in the public interest. As the disclosures were made to the employer, they were protected disclosures.

The tribunal considered nineteen alleged detriments relating mainly to the claimant's 2022 performance review, temporary and permanent Train Operations Manager opportunities, grievance and appeal outcomes, and later correspondence from senior managers. Some matters were not made out on the facts, including allegations that Ms Waite marked the claimant's permanent promotion application, misled Mr Victor, or that Mr Dent contradicted an earlier assurance. Other matters were found to amount to detriments, such as the original low performance rating, the standard letter referring to that rating, rejection for a second secondment, the breach of the post-mediation notification arrangement, grievance or appeal rejection, delayed feedback, and an unanswered query.

For the detriments that were established, the tribunal found they were not done on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures. It accepted explanations that decisions were based on operational needs, My Journey data, grievance and appeal assessments, or mistake rather than the disclosures. The complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed.