Case 3303649/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Dhariwal, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 3303649/2018
- Decision date
- 28 July 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs S Hamil, Mr R Lesley
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Dhariwal, Solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent NHS Trust as In-patient Services Matron. She alleged that her line manager, Ms Melanie Carr, was regularly leaving early and that she raised those concerns first with Ms Denise Sullivan on 30 June 2017 and again at a meeting on 4 July 2017. The tribunal found that she did not say she was making a whistleblowing complaint, did not refer to patient safety or breach of contract at the relevant meetings, and did not have a reasonable belief that Ms Carr was absent without authority or that any legal obligation had been breached.
The tribunal accepted that relations between the claimant and Ms Carr broke down after 4 July 2017, but it found that the resulting reduction in informal contact, the transfer of some line management to Ms Abiola Jinadu, and the absence of further one-to-ones did not amount to ostracism or detriment. It also found no evidence that Mr O'Leary or Ms Heed treated the claimant adversely because of any protected disclosure. On that basis, the public interest disclosure detriment claim was dismissed.
On dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant had decided by July 2017 to leave and had started looking for another Band 7 post, later resigning on 11 October 2017. It found that the respondent did not breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and that, even if there had been any breach, the claimant had affirmed it by continuing in employment after July 2017. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and because she had not established protected disclosures, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 also failed. The provisional remedy hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Western Excavating test
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages last straw doctrine
- Omilaju last straw doctrine
- Tullett Prebon objective assessment
- Cavendish Munro disclosure of information
- Korashi reasonable belief
- Shamoon detriment test
- Fecitt materially influenced test
- Eiger Securities legal obligation test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
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.