Ms Sarah-Louise Stanley v Hollies Day Nurseries Limited — 2022

Ms Stanley had been employed by Hollies Day Nurseries Limited as an Administrator/PA from 7 June 2021 until her dismissal on 13 December 2021. At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal was only dealing with her application for interim relief under s.128(1)(a)(i) ERA 1996 in relation to the s.103A whistleblowing dismissal claim. It applied a broad summary assessment, referring to Taplin v C Shippam Limited, and confined itself to whether the claim appeared likely to succeed.

The disclosure relied on was an email sent on 12 December 2021 in which Ms Stanley said she would work from home because she was pregnant and a chronic asthmatic and was not comfortable working in a small cabin during the Covid-19 period. The tribunal accepted that the email might arguably amount to a qualifying disclosure, but said it could not conclude that the eventual tribunal would be likely to find it was a protected disclosure, because on its face it appeared to relate to her own position rather than the public interest. It also considered a 30 November 2021 letter, which showed that her objection to the proposed change in working pattern was linked to childcare and the move to Sherwood rather than concerns about Covid-19.

On causation, the tribunal took into account evidence from the respondent's witnesses that the decision to dismiss had been made by the end of 10 December 2021, before the 12 December email was sent. It noted evidence about the claimant's computer being moved to the new office, personal use found on the PC, password-protected documents, and asserted safeguarding concerns. It concluded that it could not say the s.103A claim was likely to succeed and therefore refused interim relief and dismissed the application. The tribunal also recorded that there were other pleaded claims, but it did not determine them at this hearing.