Case 2407272/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Baird v Cumberland Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407272/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Baird
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal decided a preliminary issue concerning the claimant's complaint of detriments arising from alleged protected disclosures under Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that Ms Baird was not a worker within the meaning of section 43K Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the whistleblowing detriment complaint against Cumberland Council could not proceed and was dismissed.
The judgment did not dismiss the entire claim. Employment Judge Johnson recorded that, although the Note of Preliminary Hearing made by Employment Judge Serr on 8 November 2023 appeared to indicate that the claim was limited to whistleblowing only, the tribunal could not dismiss the whole claim until there was clarity concerning complaints of unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.
No remedy award was made in this judgment. The parties were to be contacted separately by Judge Johnson so the remaining matter concerning unfair dismissal and religion or belief discrimination could be clarified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal decided the preliminary issue that the claimant was not a worker within the meaning of section 43K Employment Rights Act 1996, so the Part IVA protected disclosure detriment complaint could not proceed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 43K Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.