Case 2413367/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Hyde v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413367/2018
- Decision date
- 6 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Panel members
- Mr I Taylor, Mr DT Wilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Hyde
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a prison officer and made an agreed protected disclosure on 5 March 2017 after reporting that she had witnessed an assault on a prisoner. She later alleged that colleagues and managers subjected her to detriments because of that disclosure, including being ostracised, unsupported, affected by Facebook posts, and treated adversely during sickness absence and grievance processes. The tribunal rejected the individual detriment allegations on their facts or found explanations unconnected with the protected disclosure, and it was unable to attribute the Facebook posts to serving employees acting in the course of employment.
The respondent had conceded disability for the purposes of the proceedings by reason of depression and anxiety. The tribunal dismissed the section 15 claim, finding among other matters that the claimant was not prevented from returning to full-time hours while on sickness absence, that the respondent had not failed in the pleaded way to provide work updates or vacancy information, and that she was not told on 7 June 2018 that she would be dismissed. The harassment claim also failed: the tribunal found that home visits and telephone contact during absence were connected with welfare and absence management, were within acceptable frequency, and were not shown to have the alleged purpose or effect.
The tribunal considered the allegations cumulatively as well as individually. It accepted that the claimant was anxious about the consequences of reporting the incident and that some aspects of management communication could have been handled better, including use of the word "impartial" by her line manager. Viewed objectively, however, it found that the respondent behaved properly, offered support, and sought to reassure the claimant that she had done the right thing. As no repudiatory breach was established, the constructive unfair dismissal claim and the automatic unfair constructive dismissal claim also failed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaints of detriment for making a protected disclosure were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's report on 5 March 2017 was a protected disclosure, but did not find that the alleged acts were done on that ground or that the pleaded individual acts amounted to detriment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of dismissal for making a protected disclosure, pleaded as automatically unfair constructive dismissal under section 103A ERA, was dismissed because the tribunal did not find constructive dismissal or that the protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 EqA was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability under section 26 EqA was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed; the tribunal found no repudiatory breach entitling the claimant to resign. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology and Dhaliwal
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
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.
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.