: A Atkinson A Perriam Ms C Munday v Represented by: Ms G Williams Intobeige Ltd trading as Spynie Care Home — 2023

Ms C Munday worked as a care assistant at Spynie Care Home and raised concerns about staffing levels, showers, meals, furnishings and other aspects of care. She alleged that she made a protected disclosure to the Care Inspectorate and that the respondent later dismissed her because of whistleblowing. The tribunal accepted that she acted in good faith and in the interests of residents, but it had difficulty with her evidence about when the complaint was made and was not satisfied that the complaint was shown to have been made on 6 January 2022 as she later contended.

The claimant was disciplined after a 3 January 2022 incident in which she used a hoist without another carer, together with allegations that she used a stand aid without assistance, allowed a resident to vape, and took a resident's laundry home to wash. The tribunal accepted the minutes of the investigatory and disciplinary meetings as accurate. It found that the disciplinary matters, particularly the moving and handling complaint, were the reason for dismissal, and that Mr Partis and the appeal officer were unaware at the relevant time of any protected disclosure to the Care Inspectorate.

Applying the whistleblowing provisions in sections 43, 47B and 103A ERA 1996 and the causation approach in Fecitt v NHS Manchester, the tribunal held that the protected disclosure did not materially influence the respondent's treatment of the claimant. It also rejected the submission that the earlier disciplinary process was a sham, noting that the claimant accepted the allegations were potentially serious and that she expected at least a warning. The tribunal dismissed the detriment claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim.

The claim under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the 13 January 2022 meeting with Ms Scott was an investigatory meeting rather than a disciplinary meeting capable of engaging the statutory right to be accompanied, although it observed that the meeting was tightly focused on the allegations and could have raised concerns in an ordinary unfair dismissal case.