Case 4100702/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Members: Ms. Laura Crooks Mr. William Muir Dr Renee Elizabeth Bleau v The University Court of the — 2018
- Case reference
- 4100702/2017
- Decision date
- 12 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Ms. Laura Crooks, Mr. William Muir
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members: Ms. Laura Crooks Mr. William Muir Dr Renee Elizabeth Bleau
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing the tribunal refused the claimant's late application to amend the ET1 to add a complaint about a five-page PDF of her PDR record, saying the application was made far too late. The tribunal then proceeded to determine the existing complaints after hearing evidence, submissions, and further written representations.
On the whistleblowing complaints, the tribunal held that none of the alleged disclosures amounted to qualifying protected disclosures within section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the claimant had not been subjected to any detriment, including no detriment on the ground that she had made a qualifying protected disclosure, so the section 47B detriment complaint was dismissed as not well-founded.
The tribunal further found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed, either expressly or constructively under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. Her complaint of unfair constructive dismissal under sections 94 and 98 therefore failed, and her section 103A complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for having made a qualifying protected disclosure also failed because she was not dismissed on that ground.
The complaint based on part-time worker status, concerning a funding request to attend an overseas conference, was held to be time-barred and outwith the tribunal's jurisdiction, with the tribunal saying it was not just and equitable in all the circumstances to allow it to proceed. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints in their entirety and found she was not entitled to any compensation. It also recorded that, even if any claim had succeeded, compensation would have been significantly reduced for conduct and contribution and for failure to mitigate loss, and that re-engagement would not have been ordered because it would not have been practical. The tribunal noted that the claimant had paid £250 in tribunal fees and that, in light of UNISON, HMCTS should refund those fees; it also reserved the respondents' position on expenses.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that none of the alleged disclosures were qualifying protected disclosures within section 43B ERA 1996, and that the claimant was not subjected to a detriment under section 47B ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed, either expressly or constructively under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, so the unfair constructive dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed on the grounds that she had made a qualifying protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The complaint that she suffered unlawful discrimination on the ground of part-time worker status in relation to an overseas conference funding request was held time-barred and outwith jurisdiction; the tribunal said it was not just and equitable to allow it to proceed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 43B ERA 1996 qualifying protected disclosure
- section 47B ERA 1996 detriment
- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- Regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
- just and equitable
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.