Case 2601172/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Kealy v Westfield Community Development Association — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601172/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell Members
- Panel members
- Mrs J Bonser, Mr C Goldson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Kealy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs R Kealy worked for Westfield Community Development Association as Early Years Co-ordinator from 1 October 2016 and resigned on 4 December 2019. The tribunal found that the nursery had funding and operational difficulties, including Ofsted's downgrade in June 2019 and a council audit showing EYPP and DAF amounts not fully accounted for. It accepted that Mrs Kealy sent a report to trustees about the unspent funds, but preferred the evidence of Mr Roberts and Ms Hutchings that she had authority to spend the funding and that Mr Roberts did not tell her to produce a false report.
On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal accepted some of the factual complaints about the heating failure in November 2019, including that the heating broke down on 12 November and was potentially harmful. It also accepted that Mrs Kealy made reports to Ofsted and others, but found her evidence unreliable on key points and concluded that she did not have a reasonable belief in the truth of the totality of the disclosures, particularly where she told Ofsted that nothing was being done about the heating. It therefore held that there were no qualifying protected disclosures, so the section 47B detriment claims failed and the section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed.
The tribunal rejected the constructive dismissal case. It found that Mr Roberts acted with reasonable and proper cause in dealing with the funding dispute, the heating problems and the later grievance about Mr Bell, and it did not accept that the implied term of trust and confidence had been breached. It accepted that Mr Roberts asked Mrs Kealy on 19 November 2019 to identify parents who had complained, that he queried staffing levels, and that he investigated the written grievance she raised on 2 December 2019, including suspending Mr Bell. The section 100 and section 104 dismissal claims, and the section 44 detriment claim, were all dismissed. No compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Section 47B ERA 1996 detriment claims dismissed because the tribunal found no qualifying protected disclosures and therefore did not need to consider the alleged detriments. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 dismissed; the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 dismissed because no qualifying protected disclosures were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100 ERA 1996 dismissed; although the tribunal accepted the heating failure was potentially harmful, it found no causative link between that reporting and the claimant's resignation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 ERA 1996 dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Section 44 ERA 1996 detriment claim concerning health and safety issues dismissed; the tribunal held the post-resignation grievance response was not a detriment and relied on the earlier factual findings. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.43G ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.44 ERA 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.
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.