Ms S Sleeman (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2017

The Claimant, a teaching assistant, raised concerns in March 2017 about Nick Baker's alleged conflict of interest, alleged staff recruitment to Wetherby, salary arrangements, and waiting list influence. The tribunal held that she disclosed information rather than making only allegations, and that she reasonably believed the disclosures were made in the public interest. In reaching that conclusion it referred to authorities including NHS Manchester v Fecitt, Blackbay Ventures v Gahir, Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed, Babula v Waltham Forest College and Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld.

The tribunal found, however, that the underlying allegations were mistaken: Mr Baker had not poached Carl Batchelder, had not manipulated waiting lists, and had not acted in conflict of interest or inappropriately. It accepted that the school investigated the complaint, first through the governors and later through the Cleaver panel. The later panel upheld only the confidentiality complaint internally and recommended whistleblowing training, but the tribunal held that the rejection of the other allegations was not itself a detriment on the ground of protected disclosure.

The main detriment found by the tribunal was the breach of confidentiality, where Mr Jordan inadvertently copied Mr Baker and Ms McNaney into email correspondence about the complaint. The tribunal found that this was not deliberate and was not done because the Claimant had made protected disclosures. It also rejected the alleged detriments concerning the referral to occupational health, the handling of the grievance and appeal process, the move to another class, and the alleged ostracism, holding that these were not caused by protected disclosure.

On dismissal, the tribunal held that the confidentiality breach was capable of destroying trust and confidence and did so. The Claimant did not affirm the contract before resigning on 29 January 2018, so she was constructively unfairly dismissed within s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It nevertheless rejected the automatic unfair dismissal case under s.103A ERA 1996 because the protected disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for the dismissal. A remedy hearing was to be arranged unless the parties agreed terms.