Case 4100110/2016 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100110/2016 Hearing at Edinburgh on 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, and January 20175 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms M Perrett Mr I Drysdale Jacqueline Brown v West Lothian Council — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100110/2016
- Decision date
- 21 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo MacLeod
- Panel members
- Ms M Perrett, Mr I Drysdale
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100110/2016 Hearing at Edinburgh on 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, and January 20175 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms M Perrett Mr I Drysdale Jacqueline Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a counsellor employed by West Lothian Council, raised concerns about counselling records, use of SWIFT, and the handling of client contact during her sickness absence. The Tribunal found that her disclosure alleging false retrospective SWIFT entries by her line manager was a qualifying disclosure, but her disclosure about clients not being contacted during her absence did not meet the statutory test.
The Tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim. It found that the disciplinary allegations were not spurious, the investigation was not a "witch hunt", the suspension was not shown to have been deliberately prolonged, and the continuation and conduct of the disciplinary process were justified by matters including the claimant's admitted emailing of confidential client information to her personal email account. It also accepted evidence that the protected disclosure did not influence the relevant decision makers.
The Tribunal also dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal and whistleblowing dismissal claims. It found that the claimant resigned before a reconvened disciplinary hearing, and that her resignation was not caused by detriments for making protected disclosures. The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had not dismissed her, had not committed repudiatory breaches of contract, and had acted responsibly and reasonably in investigating and pursuing disciplinary proceedings. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal found that the allegation about retrospective SWIFT entries amounted to a qualifying disclosure, but the allegation about failure to contact clients during the claimant's absence did not. It found no detriments on the ground of the qualifying disclosure and no dismissal on that ground. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed and that the respondent had not committed repudiatory breaches of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- sections 43A and 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd (t/a Chemistree) v Gahir
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Brown v Merchant Ferries Ltd
- BCCI v Ali (No 3)
- Jones v Collegiate Academy Trust
- Wright v North Ayrshire Council
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.