Claimant v Precious Homes Ltd — 2021

A Elliston worked for Precious Homes Limited from 1 June 2017 until he resigned on 20 January 2020. He brought claims under s.47B ERA 1996 and for constructive unfair dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the matters raised on 5 November 2018 and in early 2019 were protected disclosures, but it held that the complaints about the PIP, the safeguarding report of 5 November 2018, and the alleged hostile conduct by Ms Koenner were out of time and, in any event, were not caused by the disclosures.

The tribunal found that the PIP had been put in place on 24 October 2018, before the protected disclosures were made, and that the first safeguarding report was made contemporaneously and as part of the respondent's duty to report safeguarding concerns to Brent London Borough Council. It also found that the claimant's allegations about Ms Koenner's hostile behaviour ended by 31 October 2018. The later Verney Street discussions and the grievance meeting on 29 April 2019 were not found to be detriments within s.47B, and the tribunal said that the grievance meeting, although at times robust, did not amount to a detriment.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the claimant relied on alleged failure to deal with the protected disclosures, failure to safeguard confidential information, and the assault by service user SD together with an alleged failure to provide a safe system of work. The tribunal found that the respondent had dealt with the concerns raised, that the data-protection complaint had either been resolved or was not sufficiently serious to amount to a repudiatory breach, and that the respondent had systems in place to manage the risks posed by service users. Applying the approach in Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, it concluded that there was no repudiatory breach and that the claimant resigned because he had obtained a more desirable job with MIND, at a higher salary and with more regular hours. All claims were dismissed.