Miss S Coleman v Southwark Council — 2020

The tribunal considered alleged protected disclosures said to run from 2012 to 2017. It accepted only limited parts of the case: an issue about the markets building in PD2, and a limited disclosure in PD5 relating to a disputed £954 payment to QSL. Most of PD1, PD2, PD3 and PD4 were rejected, either because the tribunal did not accept the matters were disclosed, or because the claimant did not show a reasonable belief that they tended to show fraud or breach of legal obligation.

On the employment relationship, the tribunal found that the November 2015 meeting between the claimant and Mr Costin marked a deterioration in relations. It accepted that he said she was "away with the fairies" and apologised, but it did not accept the alleged "grass" comment. The tribunal then found that the review of flexible working in early 2016 was targeted at the claimant, that Ms York failed to treat the claimant's email as a valid application while she was on sick leave, and that Mr Costin later overstated the seriousness of the data issue by saying the material sent to the claimant's personal email included bank account details.

The tribunal held that Mr Costin instigated the email monitoring and disciplinary process in order to find a reason to dismiss the claimant, and that Ms Leary did not exercise proper independent judgement in taking the matter forward. It found that the claimant's evidence that managers knew she used her personal email for work documents was not properly addressed, and that her whistleblowing defence was not properly considered. The claimant resigned on 25 September 2017; the tribunal found she was constructively dismissed, and that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded under section 98(4) ERA 1996. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal did not find that a protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal.

The detriments complaint failed. Most of the alleged detriments pre-dated PD5 and could not have been caused by that disclosure, and the later alleged detriments were found to reflect the same personal animosity or were not proved, including the allegation that Islington Council was told about the disciplinary process. The tribunal directed that there should be no Polkey reduction or deduction for contributory fault, but remedy was left to a later hearing.