Case 3303537/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Watson v United Synagogue — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303537/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr A.
- Panel members
- Mr R. Allan, Mr D. Hart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the March 2024 hearing before Employment Judge Mr A. Spencer sitting with Mr R. Allan and Mr D. Hart, Miss K Watson brought complaints of automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and holiday pay against United Synagogue. The holiday pay complaint was withdrawn at the outset and dismissed upon withdrawal. The later reconsideration application dated 18 March 2024 was refused on 26 March 2024 because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked and said the application largely repeated the same evidence and arguments, with some material that could have been put before the tribunal earlier.
On the unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal found that the claimant had resigned by her email of 13 December 2021 and that her employment ended on 17 December 2021. It therefore held that she had not been dismissed within the meaning of section 95(1)(a) ERA 1996 and that the unfair dismissal claim failed at the first hurdle.
The tribunal further held that, even if the respondent's 11 January 2022 email had amounted to a dismissal, the claim would still fail because the respondent acted on its genuine belief that the claimant had resigned and on its perception that she was an unreliable employee. It found that the fact she had made protected disclosures was not a material factor in the respondent's action, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim would not succeed in any event.
On the whistleblowing detriment complaint, the tribunal held that the claimant had made protected disclosures in relation to some of the matters she relied on, including disclosures to the NSPCC, Ofsted, LADO, the police and in the 30 December 2021 investigation meeting. It rejected the alleged detriments: Ms Bonsu had not asked the claimant to resign, the claimant was not dismissed on 11 January 2022 for whistleblowing reasons, and the weekly reminders about repayment of overpaid wages were caused by an administrative error rather than by her disclosures. The tribunal therefore dismissed the remaining complaints.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on alleged whistleblowing. The tribunal found the claimant had resigned on 13 December 2021 and that her employment ended on 17 December 2021; even if the 11 January 2022 email had amounted to a dismissal, the reason was the respondent's genuine belief that she had resigned and its perception that she was unreliable, not her protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 47B detriment complaint. The tribunal held that the claimant had made some protected disclosures, including disclosures to the NSPCC, Ofsted, LADO, the police and at the 30 December 2021 investigation meeting, but rejected the alleged detriments because Ms Bonsu did not ask her to resign, she was not dismissed on 11 January 2022 for whistleblowing reasons, and the weekly repayment reminders were caused by an administrative error rather than by her disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant withdrew this complaint at the outset of the hearing and agreed to it being dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- interests of justice
- finality of litigation
- no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked
- section 95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 43A/43B ERA 1996
- section 47B ERA 1996
- Williams v Brown [2019]
- Wicked Vision v Rice [2024]
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.