Ms M Wynter v London Borough of Lewisham — 2021

The Claimant resigned after transferring from a Family Social Work team to the Connected Persons and Special Guardianship team. She alleged that the Respondent had failed to follow aspects of its transfer policy, instructed her to carry out sensitive work for which she was not trained, and failed to address concerns she raised about induction and support. The Tribunal found that the transfer was consensual, the relevant support requests had been addressed as far as possible, and any technical issue with the transfer paperwork did not affect trust and confidence.

The Tribunal accepted that the new role involved different work and that the Claimant needed support, but found that the Respondent's standard practice was on-the-job learning with support, that the Claimant had not requested a protected induction period before resigning, and that she had not been instructed to do work despite feeling unable to do it. It found that Ms Gilzean should preferably have replied directly to the 26 June email, but had taken steps to arrange shadowing and supervision, and that Mr Osei had not failed to address the issue in the short period before the Claimant resigned.

On whistleblowing, the Tribunal considered the 26 June email, the 2 July conversation with Mr Osei, and the 3 July conversation with Ms Gilzean. It found that none was a qualifying disclosure: the email was primarily a request for shadowing, the conversation with Mr Osei raised concerns about support and deadlines but did not reasonably tend to show the alleged legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, or health and safety matters, and the 3 July conversation was about the Claimant's notice period. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and protected disclosure detriment complaints.