Ms J Locke Respondent Nottinghamshire County Council v Respondent — 2021

Ms J Locke had worked for Nottinghamshire County Council since 2002 and became a temporary team manager in November 2016. The tribunal found that she made protected disclosures to Paul McKay on 21 March 2017 and 29 March 2017 about Nicola Peace's management of the Gedling team, and that her written grievance of 12 March 2018 was also a protected disclosure. The tribunal held that these disclosures were made in the public interest and were not made for personal gain.

The dismissal arose from the claimant's access to Mosaic records on 18 April 2017 and 8 May 2017 in connection with a safeguarding incident involving a member of staff and a service user. The tribunal found that she had legitimate managerial reasons for accessing the records in exceptional circumstances and rejected the allegation that she misused the system as gross misconduct. It also found that there was no evidence that she shared the service user's private information with other parties as alleged.

The tribunal found that Ms Peace did not stand back from the process despite HR advice. It held that she steered the investigation, selected evidence and witnesses, and remained actively involved despite being a material witness. The tribunal also found that Ms Scott, who chaired the disciplinary hearing, was a deceived decision-maker because she was given selective and inaccurate information, including about ICO and HCPC referrals and the context of the claimant's grievance.

Applying Jhuti, the tribunal concluded that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosures, with gross misconduct used as the stated reason. It also held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 because there was no reasonable basis for gross misconduct, the investigation was flawed, the relevant policies did not clearly cover the conduct, and the claimant's mitigation was not properly weighed. The tribunal made no reduction for contributory fault or Polkey.

The tribunal upheld the detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996, finding that the claimant was subjected to an unnecessary investigation and disciplinary process, an unnecessary suspension, biased and inaccurate criticism in Mr McKay's management statement of case, and unfair criticism in Ms Peace's evidence to the investigator. It also held that the summary dismissal was wrongful and that 12 weeks' notice pay was due. The holiday pay complaint succeeded as well, but the amount remained to be determined at the remedy hearing because the outstanding entitlement could not be calculated precisely.