Claimant v Pearson v PMS Managing Estates Ltd — 2020

The claimant worked for the respondent for just over two months as a client accountant. The tribunal found that concerns about her performance and conduct arose very early in the employment, including issues about phone use, punctuality, training, repeated mistakes, and colleagues' complaints. By 25 September 2018 the respondent was already considering dismissal, and by 17 October 2018 Mr Malone was seriously contemplating dismissal for poor performance. The dismissal notice issued on 7 November 2018 stated that further training was still required and that the claimant lacked the attention to detail the role demanded.

On the whistleblowing allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant's account evolved over time and that the allegations were raised late. It held that there was no protected disclosure on 11 October 2018 in relation to St James 2 because the claimant was identifying discrepancies as part of her role and the email saying the amounts did not match did not disclose wrongdoing. It also held that there was no protected disclosure on 6 November 2018 in relation to Chinook 1 because the email about an invoice and the alleged 18-month rule did not disclose information of the required kind. The tribunal further found that, even if there had been a disclosure, there was no wrongdoing on St James 2 and no objectively reasonable belief of breach in relation to Chinook 1.

The tribunal concluded that the principal reason for dismissal was performance, not the alleged disclosures. It found that the respondent had reached the view that dismissal was appropriate before the first alleged whistleblowing incident relied on by the claimant, and that the timing of the notice reflected the probationary process rather than any protected disclosure. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, and the whistleblowing claim also failed.