Jencin Mathew v Service to the Aged — 2021

The claim against Service to the Aged Ltd was dismissed upon withdrawal, and the tribunal identified Service to the Aged company number 02580196 as the proper respondent. On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was constructively dismissed within the meaning of s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It held that the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A because the sole or principal reason was the protected disclosures the claimant had made, and that it was also unfair within s.98 ERA 1996.

The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s complaint of detriment contrary to s.47B ERA 1996. It held that the complaint was presented in time because the matters complained of formed part of a series of similar acts, with the last act occurring in time. The detriments found included the Home Manager and Deputy Home Manager ignoring or challenging reports of incorrect drug administration between July 2019 and 3 February 2020, questioning why the claimant was reporting those matters, questioning the credibility of the claimant’s findings, and denying there had been any expiry of medication stock.

The tribunal further found that on 13 February 2020 the Home Manager shouted at the claimant and accused her of wrongly changing her shifts, that false allegations were made by nurses on 6 December 2019 and 12 February 2020, and that the claimant was subjected to a disciplinary investigation meeting on 16 March 2020. It also found that at that meeting the claimant was disbelieved and criticised and challenged, and that on 27 March 2020 she was issued with a letter of concern and told to improve her practice.

On remedy, the tribunal ordered compensation for injury to feelings of £10,000 plus interest of £1,066.66, making £11,066.66 for the whistleblowing detriment claim. It also ordered compensation for unfair dismissal of £26,258.44, comprising a basic award of £1,614 and a compensatory award of £24,644.44. The recoupment provisions were held not to apply.