Case 3307078/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3307078/2022
- Decision date
- 11 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Williams, Mr R Allen
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought whistleblowing detriment claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996. She alleged that she made protected disclosures about Covid-19 rule compliance in January 2021 and on 22 February 2022, and that she later suffered detriments including disciplinary and grievance handling by the first respondent and removal from her normal cleaning location by the second respondent.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant did not subjectively have a reasonable belief that the information disclosed tended to show a relevant failure under section 43B ERA 1996, and that objectively any such belief was not reasonable. It also found, in the alternative, that the alleged detriments against the first respondent were not made out or were not connected to any alleged protected disclosure.
For the second respondent, the tribunal found that moving the claimant to clean another site within the port was within the contractual arrangements and did not amount to a detriment because her terms, conditions, and pay were unchanged. The claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant's public interest disclosure detriment claims were not well founded. The provided PDF text is truncated in the middle, but the opening judgment and concluding reasons are available. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- public interest disclosure detriment
- reasonable belief
- material influence
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.