Ms K Blakey v Newcastle University — 2023

The claimant worked for Newcastle University from 2008 on externally funded registry projects. The Tribunal found that her role was wholly dependent on external public funding and was limited to establishing the registries and securing approvals, rather than ongoing data collection and analysis. By February 2020 she had been given notice of redundancy, later extended to 30 September 2020, and by July to September 2020 the cancer registry had been suspended for lack of CAG approval while the East Midlands and North West registries had suspended funding.

On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and that this met the statutory definition because the need for employees to carry out the work of the particular kind done by the claimant had ceased or was expected to cease. Applying the redundancy authorities cited in the judgment, the Tribunal found the claimant was reasonably identified as the person at risk, consultation took place, she was warned and given redeployment information and appeal rights, and no suitable alternative employment was identified. The Tribunal also rejected the claimant's case that the redundancy was an appearance masking a different reality, finding no evidential basis for allegations of bad faith against RM or others.

On whistleblowing, the Tribunal accepted only Disclosure 1, namely the claimant's complaint about sewer gas smell in 2019 to RM. It did not accept that Disclosures 2 to 5 were proved on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal held that the sickness absence procedure in April 2019, the informal performance management meeting on 20 May 2020, the instruction to discuss emails before sending them to third parties, and the redundancy-related steps were all explained by absence triggers, funding difficulties and communication issues, not by protected disclosure. It therefore dismissed the detriment complaint under s.47B ERA 1996 and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996.

The discrimination arising from disability claim failed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant suffered the unfavourable treatment alleged. It found no evidence that the respondent brought forward redundancy from December 2020 to September 2020, and held that any failure to extend the contract beyond 30 September 2020 was because the registries were suspended from 1 October 2020, not because of the claimant's disability. No monetary award was made.