In person For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant was employed by London Underground Limited as a customer services manager and brought claims of protected disclosure detriment. The tribunal recorded that the respondent denied that protected disclosures were made or that it subjected the claimant to detriment.

The tribunal found that two alleged detriments did not occur: an implied threat to the claimant's employment on 30 July 2021 and denial of an opportunity to act up for Mr Persaud. It also found that Mr Persaud did not deny the claimant funding for Chartered Management Institute membership.

The tribunal accepted that the use of the phrase "personality clash" in an occupational health referral form amounted to a detriment, but found that the respondent had shown it was not done because the claimant had made protected disclosures. The protected disclosure detriment claim was dismissed.