Ms S Brobbey v London Borough of Hackney — 2024

The claimant was an agency worker in a Business Support Officer role. She complained in October and November 2020 about having been underpaid because the wrong pay rate had been applied through the Matrix system, and about the possibility that other agency workers had also been affected. The tribunal found those communications were protected disclosures because they contained information about pay errors, the claimant reasonably believed they raised legal obligations concerning agency workers, and they could reasonably be viewed as being in the public interest.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not proved hostility or micromanagement by Ms Randolph. The December 2020 and January 2021 emails were found to be appropriate management communications about workload in the context of the respondent's cyberattack. The request to return a temporary chair was not found to be a detriment, the claimant was not told to return the Chromebook once she confirmed she was using it, and the equipment enquiries were found to be unrelated to the disclosures.

The termination of the claimant's placement was accepted as a detriment, but the tribunal found it was not because of the protected disclosures. It accepted the respondent's evidence that a permanent employee needed to be redeployed into a permanent Business Support Officer role, that the claimant was occupying the suitable role as an agency worker, and that this was the reason for ending her assignment. The tribunal also found that the explanations given for termination were accurate and consistent rather than untrue or conflicting.