Mr A Gloag, of counsel For the v In person UNANIMOUS — 2021

Mrs Dhillon was the Practice Manager at the Medina Medical Centre. The tribunal found that relations with Dr Subramony deteriorated in the first half of 2018 over practice expenditure, her pay, and the use of practice cheques. It accepted that she made out cheques to herself from the practice account without authorisation and rejected her case that the later documents she produced as statements of terms and conditions were genuine separate off-site contracts.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the claimant made only one written complaint to Luton CCG, received on 30 July 2018, and rejected her evidence that there had been an earlier April disclosure or that she had told Dr Subramony about any complaint before her suspension on 31 July 2018. It held that the short complaint did not amount to a protected disclosure under s.43A ERA 1996, that the s.43G conditions were not satisfied, and that the claimant could not reasonably believe she would be subjected to a detriment if Dr Subramony learned of it.

The detriment and s.103A dismissal claims therefore failed. The tribunal held that the respondents suspended and dismissed her because of the conduct concerns they had formed, not because of whistleblowing. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct in paying herself for 26 hours per week when she was only contractually entitled to 20 hours and in producing non-genuine contractual documents. It also found that the investigation, disciplinary process and appeal were within the range of reasonable responses, so the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996 failed.

On the pay issues, the tribunal found that the claimant was contractually entitled to 20 hours per week and rejected her case for 25-26 hours or separate off-site/home contracts. On that basis, the wrongful dismissal claim failed, and the notice-pay, unlawful deduction from wages and accrued holiday pay complaints based on the extra 6 hours per week could not succeed. No monetary award was fixed in this liability judgment.

The respondents' counterclaim for breach of contract, based on alleged overpaid wages, succeeded in principle but was adjourned because the tribunal considered the claimant might have a quantum meruit or set-off argument. No final monetary award was fixed on the counterclaim.