Mr L Harris, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal applied the Yewdall approach to s.146 TULRCA claims and the detriment test from Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah and Shamoon. Ms Brown was a Customer Service Supervisor and, from 1 January 2017, an RMT Tier 1 health and safety representative. At the outset of the hearing she withdrew the unlawful deduction claim and the grievance-handling allegations in paragraphs 1(g), (h) and (m), leaving the tribunal to decide the trade union, health and safety, whistleblowing and remaining wage-deduction issues recorded in the judgment.

On 23 March 2017 the tribunal accepted that Ms Brown raised concerns at a Tier 1 health and safety meeting about excessive hours, an unlicensed station closure and Dollis Hill being left open and unstaffed. It found those matters were disclosures of information that she reasonably believed were in the public interest and tended to show failures to comply with legal and health and safety obligations, so they were protected disclosures. It also accepted that her 25 July 2017 email to Mr Duru about the missed collection and the need to plan safe station staffing was a protected disclosure, but found that her oral explanation on 25 July 2017 about CSS Opoku's medical restriction was not itself a protected disclosure because it was not made in the public interest.

The tribunal found that some of the complained-of treatment amounted to detriments in fact, including requiring Ms Brown to meet Mr Duru for a return-to-work interview on 14 October 2017 while a grievance against him was outstanding, insisting that the meeting proceed, and instructing her on 25 October 2017 to work at Dollis Hill. It also said the refusal to provide notes of the 25 July interview could amount to a detriment. But it found the July 2017 management advice letter and email were not disciplinary sanctions, the 14 August email from Mr Painter was reasonable, and the pay deduction for 25 October 2017 was caused by an administrative SAP entry made by Eamonn Clifford and later corrected.

Overall, the tribunal rejected the causation case on all live claims. It found no evidence that the actions were taken for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring union membership or activity, no evidence that they were because Ms Brown had carried out health and safety representative functions, and no evidence that the treatment was because of the protected disclosures. The claims were therefore dismissed, and there was no monetary award.