(1) Ms Amanda Booth (2) Mr Fabian Whitbread v City of Oxford Swimming Club — 2024

The tribunal found that the joint letter of 5 March 2021 to the committee was a qualifying disclosure because it contained information capable of tending to show breaches of legal obligation, and that the claimants reasonably believed that they were acting in the public interest. It applied Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth and Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed in analysing the protected disclosure issue. For Amanda Booth, the tribunal also held that the contemporaneous letter to members satisfied s.43G ERA 1996 because she had previously made a substantially similar disclosure to the employer; for Fabian Whitbread, the email to members was not protected under s.43G, although the email to the committee was protected.

On detriment, the tribunal found that the claimants were suspended from employment and membership, removed from club systems, subjected to disciplinary action, refused a collective grievance process, excluded from the Special General Meeting on 1 April 2021, and that safeguarding-related comments were made at the SGM and later reflected in a bulletin. It held that the suspension, disciplinary steps, refusal to hear the collective grievance, exclusion from the SGM, and related comments were detriments, but it did not accept every pleaded detriment: for Amanda Booth, the alleged failure to properly respond to the subject access request was not made out. The tribunal also found that the safeguarding-related comments and bulletin were made to justify the respondent's actions rather than because of the protected disclosures.

For Amanda Booth, the tribunal held that the committee's increasing involvement in coaching matters, the handling of the disciplinary appeal, and the pressure around the subject access request and grievance cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence. Applying Western Excavating (ECC) v Sharp and Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA, it found a constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, and concluded that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason included the protected disclosure detriment under s.103A ERA 1996; alternatively, it would have been unfair under s.98(1)-(2) ERA 1996. It also found that she was wrongfully dismissed because she was dismissed without notice and was entitled to 10 weeks' notice. No quantum was fixed, and the issue of remedy was listed for a further hearing.

For Fabian Whitbread, the tribunal found that the respondent's conduct from 5 March 2021, including suspension, refusal to deal with the collective grievance, refusal to correspond with Brian McGuiness, and exclusion from the SGM, cumulatively amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. It held that he had not affirmed the contract and had been constructively dismissed. The tribunal further held that the reason for his dismissal was the protected disclosure made in the 5 March 2021 letter to the committee, so his unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 succeeded. The tribunal directed a remedy hearing for 9 and 10 December 2024 and did not quantify any monetary award in this judgment.