In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Ms Damova worked as a swimming instructor from 11 July 2017. The case arose from events at the Marriott Regents Park Hotel on 26 May 2018, when the tribunal found there was a dispute at poolside between her and Ms Sarah Aiello, followed by a physical altercation in the changing and shower area. Ms Damova telephoned Mr Tim Hutton that day, reported an assault and said she was on her way to the police; she later emailed the respondent, reported the matter to Chingford Police Station on 27 May 2018, and repeated her concerns in later emails and meetings.

The tribunal held that several of those communications were qualifying and protected disclosures, including the reports on 26, 27 and 28 May, 1 June, 5 June, 17 June and 18 June 2018. It did not treat the 22 June resignation email as a protected disclosure, finding that it was mainly an account of her treatment and her reasons for resigning. It accepted that the respondent was faced with conflicting accounts, CCTV, photographs and witness evidence, and found that Ms Jaiswal, who was the only HR person and was on leave until 4 June, needed to investigate the incident before taking action.

The detriment claims failed because the tribunal found the respondent's actions were driven by the need to investigate and manage a serious incident between two employees, not by the protected disclosures. It rejected the contention that the investigation was unlawfully delayed, that suspension was taken because of the disclosures, or that the grievance and disciplinary processes were materially influenced by them. It also rejected the suggestion that the respondent influenced the police outcome. The tribunal found that both Ms Damova and Ms Aiello had behaved unreasonably at poolside, that both had injuries, and that the respondent ultimately treated both with final written warnings.

On the dismissal issue, the tribunal found there had been no fundamental breach of contract entitling Ms Damova to resign and no basis for finding that her resignation on 22 June 2018 was principally because she had made protected disclosures. It therefore dismissed the s.103A unfair dismissal claim based on her resignation. The provisional remedy hearing was vacated because no compensation was awarded.