Miss J. Gale v Gatehouse Bank plc — 2023

Miss J. Gale worked for Gatehouse Bank Plc as a Direct Adviser from 8 September 2020 until her dismissal on 17 May 2022. She brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal under section 100(1)(c) ERA 1996, detriment under section 44(1)(c) ERA 1996, and breach of contract over an unpaid bonus. The tribunal accepted that in September 2021 she told her line manager that overworking staff was not sustainable and that more staff would burn out and leave, and that she repeated concerns about long working hours at an October 2021 HR meeting.

The tribunal held that those September and October 2021 complaints were the only occasions on which she brought health and safety concerns to the respondent's attention by reasonable means. It found that the later grievance process in February and March 2022, the fit notes, and the April 2022 comments on the remote working policy did not amount to health and safety disclosures for the purposes of sections 100(1)(c) or 44(1)(c). It accepted the respondent's evidence that the removal of Competent Adviser Status, the placement on a Performance Improvement Plan, and the eventual dismissal followed routine file reviews and concerns about mistakes in her work, not retaliation for raising workload concerns.

Applying the statutory tests and the burden of proof authorities it cited, including Tedeschi v Hosiden Besson Ltd and Parks v Lancashire Club, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that her health and safety concerns were the sole or principal reason for dismissal or for the alleged detriments. Both the automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims were therefore dismissed.

On the bonus issue, the tribunal found that the respondent operated a discretionary annual performance bonus plan, that the contract described bonuses as non-contractual, and that an employee was not eligible if employment ended before the bonus payment date. The tribunal found that the claimant's employment ended before any deferred bonus payment fell due, so the breach of contract claim for £1,498 was dismissed. It also observed that, even if the bonus had been contractual, the claim would not have been outstanding on termination for jurisdictional purposes.