Dr B Radeljic v University of East London — 2021

Dr Radeljic was employed by the University of East London as a Reader and applied in December 2018 for promotion to Professor. The Tribunal found that the grievance procedure was incorporated into his contract, but the promotions procedure and staff appeal policy were not. It found a cumulative breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, including matters concerning the handling of referee requests, the perceived conflict arising from Dr Weston sitting on the College Panel while also being a promotion candidate, the handling of the St Andrews external assessment, delays and failures in dealing with his grievance and appeal, and the continued absence of a process to determine his procedural complaints.

The Tribunal held that the claimant's grievance of 24 May 2019, written appeal notice of 25 September 2019, and email to the Board of Governors on 11 October 2019 were protected disclosures. It found that the grievance and later communications disclosed information about alleged failures in the promotion process which the claimant reasonably believed tended to show breach of a legal obligation, namely breach of his employment contract, and which he reasonably believed were in the public interest because they concerned the fairness and transparency of academic promotion procedures at the university.

The protected disclosure detriment complaints succeeded. The Tribunal found that the respondent failed properly to deal with the protected disclosures and continually delayed addressing them over about nine months. It rejected the respondent's explanation that it had addressed the claimant's concerns by offering an ad hoc review and later a new promotion panel, finding that the claimant had repeatedly raised wider procedural complaints as well as seeking reconsideration of his promotion application. It concluded that the treatment was materially influenced by the contents of the protected disclosures.

The Tribunal found that the resignation on 27 February 2020 was a constructive dismissal. It held that the final straw was the further delay after the claimant's solicitors sent a table of alleged procedural failings on 23 January 2020, with only a vague holding response on 13 February 2020 before resignation. The dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A ERA 1996 because the principal reason for the conduct amounting to dismissal was the contents of the protected disclosures. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded because the claimant was entitled to three months' notice pay.

On remedy, the Tribunal fixed some matters of principle but left overall financial quantification, including pension loss, tax grossing-up, and some loss issues, for further determination if not agreed. The basic award was agreed at £6,300, and loss of statutory rights was assessed at £400. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's mitigation arguments up to the end of the 2021/22 academic year and found the claimant was entitled to full loss of earnings to the end of September 2020 and partial loss for two further academic years, subject to credit for £14,915 temporary work income. It awarded £20,000 for injury to feelings and £12,500 for personal injury flowing from the protected disclosure detriments, but made no award of interest and deferred any ACAS uplift percentage.