Case 4102053/2017 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mrs M Bori v Glasgow City Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102053/2017
- Decision date
- 13 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mary Kearns
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mrs M Bori
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that she had made 24 protected disclosures, mainly concerning residents' foot care, possible fungal infections, pain relief, resident routines, staff conduct and related care standards. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was sincere and honest, and that she was trying to do her best for residents, but found that a number of the alleged disclosures lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to tend to show a breach of legal obligation or danger to health or safety.
For several alleged disclosures, the tribunal found that the claimant had raised concerns or passed on observations without identifying wrongdoing or failure by the respondent. It also found that Orchard Grove had a procedure for referring suspected infections to GPs, that residents were referred where appropriate, and that no residents were confirmed as having fungal foot infections on the evidence before the tribunal.
Some communications were found to be made in the context of the claimant responding to concerns about her own conduct or seeking assistance with disciplinary proceedings, rather than reasonably believed to be made in the public interest. Other communications were made to the SSSC or to a union representative and did not meet the statutory requirements. The tribunal concluded that none of the alleged statements or communications was a qualifying disclosure, so the case was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant claimed automatically unfair dismissal by reason of having made protected disclosures. The tribunal determined at a preliminary hearing that none of the alleged disclosures was a protected disclosure, and dismissed the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant also alleged detriments contrary to section 47B ERA by reason of protected disclosures. The tribunal found that none of the 24 alleged statements or communications constituted a qualifying disclosure as defined in Part IVA ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.43L ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Dray Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald Europe
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed
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.