Mrs Myrlette Hall v Ms U Farooq, t/a Anchor Lodge Retirement Home — 2020

Mrs Hall worked as a carer at Anchor Lodge Retirement Home from 10 May 2018 until April 2019. The tribunal accepted that she had made a number of protected disclosures about health and safety and food hygiene matters, and it found that earlier disclosures had not resulted in any detriment. It also found that ordinary unfair dismissal was not available because she did not have two years' service, so the only live issue was whether the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996.

The tribunal preferred the respondent's witnesses where there was a conflict of evidence. It found that, in the weeks before dismissal, the claimant's relationships with colleagues had deteriorated and that complaints were made about her attitude to staff and residents, including shouting, swearing, being found asleep during a shift, and being brusque with colleagues. It accepted that the claimant had genuine concerns about standards, but found that the complaints made against her were not fabricated and came from a substantial proportion of the workforce.

Applying the burden of proof approach in Kuzel and the approach in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, the tribunal held that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was not the claimant's protected disclosures. It found that Ms Farooq investigated complaints from staff, residents and families after the altercation on 14 April 2019, and that the dismissal was caused by those complaints and the claimant's recent behaviour towards colleagues and residents. The tribunal noted the proximity between the final disclosure and the dismissal, but concluded that the disclosure was not the reason or a principal reason for dismissal. The claim was therefore dismissed.