represented herself, assisted by Mr D Wallace for the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal found that the claimant, a head teacher, made ten protected disclosures between about 2016 and July 2021. It accepted that some disclosures were qualifying disclosures made in the public interest, but six alleged disclosures did not meet the statutory test because the claimant did not hold the required beliefs, and two further alleged disclosures failed because her beliefs were not reasonable.

The whistleblowing detriment complaints under section 47B ERA 1996 all failed. The tribunal found that the alleged detriments were not caused by protected disclosures: the staff survey circulation issue was a mistake, staff were not told to have no contact with the claimant, the 1 December 2020 letter followed concerns about post-suspension contact, the subject access request delay resulted from errors and volume, the disciplinary delay came from quality assurance and rescheduling, and the reference issue reflected the respondents' understanding of statutory duties. The complaint that dismissal was a detriment against the Governing Body also failed for the same reason.

The dismissal claims also failed. For automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, not protected disclosures. For ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996, it found the Burchell requirements were satisfied: the employer genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal also held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the conduct relied on occurred and was sufficiently serious to amount to a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal.

The Equality Act claims were also dismissed. The claimant's hearing impairment was accepted as a disability, but the tribunal found that Mr Frost did not mock her inability to hear him, that Mr Verma's frustration was not because of her disability, and that the suspension and dismissal were not because of her loud voice or anything arising in consequence of her disability. No remedy was awarded because none of the claims succeeded.