Case 3334389/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3334389/2018
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Kaltz, Mr S Woodward
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Senior Lecturer and Assessment Lead from 12 January 2015. He was suspended on 13 February 2017 after sending an email to Professor Helen Cameron about the Medical School's selection process, and later dismissed with immediate effect but pay in lieu of notice by letter dated 28 June 2018. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct in sending the 24 January 2017 email to Ms Rachel Greatrix of UKCAT and the 13 February 2017 email to Professor Cameron, rather than any protected disclosure.
On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal held that the first claimed disclosure to Ms Greatrix was not a protected disclosure because it did not amount to a reasonably believed public-interest disclosure tending to show a breach of legal obligation by UKCAT. It held that the second claimed disclosure to Professor Cameron was also not protected: it was sent to Professor Cameron rather than the GMC, did not identify a relevant legal obligation in the way required, and did not satisfy the statutory conditions relied on by the claimant. The third, fourth and fifth claimed disclosures also failed to satisfy the statutory tests. The tribunal accepted that the email of 14 March 2017 was a protected disclosure, but found it played no part in the decision to suspend the claimant or in the later disciplinary process.
The unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA 1996 failed because the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant had done the acts for which he was dismissed, carried out an investigation within the range of reasonable responses, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing him for conduct. The separate automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 also failed because the principal reason for dismissal was not the making of protected disclosures. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's argument that the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair because the outcome letter referred to two allegations rather than three, and held that any issue about the university statutes did not establish wrongful dismissal.
No monetary award was made, as all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Section 98 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim dismissed. The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct, namely the manner and circumstances of the emails sent to Ms Greatrix on 24 January 2017 and Professor Cameron on 13 February 2017, and held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Section 103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim dismissed. The tribunal found the dismissal was not principally because the claimant had made protected disclosures, but because of the conduct and manner of the emails relied on in the disciplinary process. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 47B ERA 1996 detriment claim dismissed. The alleged detriments were suspension on 13 February 2017 and the disciplinary process. The tribunal held that the accepted protected disclosure of 14 March 2017 played no part in those decisions, and that the earlier claimed disclosures were not protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal claim dismissed. The tribunal held that the contractual disciplinary steps were followed and that any issue with the university's statutes did not establish a breach of the employment contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- Abercrombie v Aga Rangemaster Ltd
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.43H ERA 1996
- Bolton School v Evans
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.