Mrs E Thompson v Onward Homes Ltd — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant’s 3 November 2020 email about missing trees and Treeplotter records was not a qualifying disclosure because it did not reasonably convey a danger to health and safety or a matter made in the public interest. It held that later communications on 26 February 2021 to George Peters and on 9 March 2021 to Catherine Farrington did amount to protected disclosures insofar as they raised concerns about unsurveyed trees, possible risk to the public, legal obligations, and possible concealment. The tribunal did not treat complaints about Mr Hulme’s management, alleged favouritism, or workplace treatment as protected disclosures.

The detriment complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found that the November and December 2020 appraisal meetings, the working-from-home exchanges, the Canterbury Gardens correspondence, the ash-tree meeting, the probation review correspondence, and the March 2021 communications were either ordinary management action, not shown to be detriments, or not shown to have been caused by protected disclosures. Several of the pleaded incidents pre-dated the first protected disclosure the tribunal accepted. It also found that the 1 March 2021 remark about looking for another job was a response to the claimant saying she was already considering other work, not a detriment caused by whistleblowing.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed. Although the tribunal accepted that Mr Peters became aware of the claimant’s concerns, it found that he made his decision because of probation, technical competency, and professional conduct concerns, including the ash-tree survey, decision making, and her unwillingness to follow management instructions where she disagreed with them. It found that he formed his own view from the appraisal record and the probation meetings, and that the protected disclosures were not the sole or principal reason for dismissal. No monetary award was made.