Ms S Asaria v Vision Express (UK) Limited — 2024

Ms Asaria was employed by Vision Express (UK) Limited as an optometrist and remained employed. She brought a complaint that she had been subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures about ghost clinics, double booking, and her concern that seeing two patients in a 25-minute appointment slot would endanger patient health and safety. The respondent accepted that her 9 June 2022 email to Paul Aldridge was a qualifying protected disclosure, subject to the tribunal being satisfied about her reasonable belief.

The tribunal found that Ms Asaria did not make the alleged protected disclosure during the 8 June 2022 meeting with Mr Khetir. It did not accept that he instructed her to see two patients in 25 minutes, told her to resign, said she was paid too much, or used the phrase alleged by the claimant. The tribunal found that the discussion concerned conversion rates and ghost clinics, and that the claimant had misunderstood or interpreted aspects of the meeting in a way that was not supported by the evidence.

The tribunal held that the 9 June 2022 email was a protected disclosure because Ms Asaria genuinely and reasonably believed the information tended to show that health and safety was likely to be endangered. It did not accept that she reasonably believed that the information tended to show deliberate concealment. The tribunal also held that her grievance appeal was a further protected disclosure when read together with the earlier grievance, including as to deliberate concealment, because it referred to missing evidence and the earlier concerns.

The respondent admitted on the facts that Ms Asaria was not invited to a formal grievance meeting, that her grievance was not upheld, and that her grievance appeal was not upheld. The tribunal found those matters were not done on the ground that she had made protected disclosures. It accepted that Ms Turpin failed to invite the claimant to a formal grievance meeting because of inexperience and an incorrect understanding of the procedure, and that the grievance outcome reflected her genuine conclusions, including her view that the allegation about two patients in 25 minutes was inconceivable and that the accounts of the office meeting could not be verified.

For the appeal, the tribunal accepted that Mr Stevens understood the claimant's focus to be the use of ghost clinics generally rather than a specific allegation that two patients had to be seen in 25 minutes. It found that he investigated the Harrow store's use of ghost clinics, spoke to staff, found no unauthorised use, and agreed there was insufficient evidence to take the disputed office-meeting allegation further. The tribunal therefore unanimously dismissed the section 47B complaint. It did not determine the time-limit issue because the claim failed on the merits even if presented in time.