Ms K Treacher v Tydd St Mary Parish Council — 2023

At the original hearing, a tribunal comprising Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer, Mr Green and Mr Connor dismissed Ms K Treacher's claims for detriment following public interest disclosure and constructive dismissal. In the reconsideration judgment, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had relied on four alleged disclosures, but found that the first was not proved because there was no evidence of the words used, the second was only a warning within correspondence to prompt information requested elsewhere, the third was only a request for information, and the fourth was not correspondence from the claimant. The tribunal therefore found that no protected disclosures had been made during employment.

The constructive dismissal claim was said to arise from the respondent not following the claimant's advice as parish clerk, excluding her from decision-making, and speaking negatively about her and to her. The tribunal found that the councillors were elected officials who were under no obligation to accept her advice, that she was not required to take part in the Council's decision-making, and that she had not provided persuasive evidence of any breach of contract. It also found that the derogatory emails later disclosed could not support a constructive dismissal case because the claimant was not aware of them at the relevant time.

This reconsideration application was refused under Rule 72(1) because the tribunal considered there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. The tribunal said the additional points raised, including alleged deterioration in the claimant's health during the hearing, a further alleged disclosure in an email from Councillor Magnus, concerns about a freedom of information request, and a complaint to the Health and Safety Executive made after employment had ended, would not have changed the outcome. The refusal left the original dismissal of both claims in full.