Ms M McAllister Ms E Farrell Mr J Paton v Mitie Limited — 2021

The claimant relied on an email of 1 April 2020 as a protected disclosure. The tribunal found that the email disclosed information about rumours that another employee may have changed her name to avoid a disclosure check and that she had changed her surname, and that those matters taken together were capable of tending to show a relevant failure. However, it found that the claimant did not have any belief, let alone a reasonable belief, that the information tended to show a relevant failure, and did not have a reasonable belief that the disclosure was in the public interest.

The claimant alleged detriment based on threats said to have been made by a colleague, with subsequent sick leave and loss of pay flowing from those threats. The tribunal preferred the colleague's evidence where it conflicted with the claimant's and found that the phrase used on 3 April 2020 was a common idiom rather than a threat of physical violence. It also found no evidence that the alleged second threat relating to the colleague's partner was made.

For completeness, the tribunal considered causation and found that the colleague was not aware of the alleged protected disclosure when the conversation took place. It accepted evidence that the colleague knew only that the claimant had been asking questions about her surname and was going to HR. The tribunal therefore concluded that there was no protected disclosure, no detriment, and in any event no detriment because of any protected disclosure, and dismissed the s47B claim.