Claimant v Arbroath Town Mission (SCIO) — 2019

The claimant was a long-serving employee and Centre Manager of Arbroath Town Mission. When the respondent began considering conversion to a SCIO, a dispute arose about who counted as a member and who could vote. The claimant said that the Mission's membership had long included people who attended for spiritual, social, or recreational purposes, while the board took the view that voting membership was limited to those attending church services. The tribunal found that, against that background, the claimant raised concerns internally, to her solicitors, and to OSCR that the board was excluding members from voting, that the AGM re-election process had not complied with the governing document, and that the proposed changes were being carried out unlawfully.

The tribunal held that those communications were protected disclosures within Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant had a reasonable belief that the respondent was failing, or likely to fail, to comply with legal obligations. The tribunal treated the 2005 constitution issue as not decisive in itself, because both the 2004 and 2005 constitutions referred to membership being open to those who regularly attended the centre for spiritual, recreational, or social purposes. Even if the 2005 constitution were put to one side, the tribunal considered the claimant's belief reasonable because the board was, on her evidence, adding a further church-attendance requirement and excluding people from voting on that basis.

The tribunal found that the respondent's treatment of the claimant after she raised those concerns was a detriment. It held that the final written warning, the requirement that she withdraw her allegations, and the insistence on written proof to external bodies were imposed because she had made protected disclosures. The tribunal was critical of the process followed by the board, including Ms Milton's involvement at multiple stages, the lack of a proper investigation, and the way the claimant was required to meet broadly framed allegations of insubordination.

The tribunal further found that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A because the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosures. It noted that the dismissal documentation and disciplinary process focused on her reports to OSCR, her solicitors, and AAVO, and on her challenge to the board's membership decision. If the automatic unfair dismissal claim had not succeeded, the tribunal said it would also have found the dismissal unfair under section 98. For remedy, it awarded a basic award of £9,975 and a compensatory award of £4,323 for the dismissal claim, together with £5,000 for injury to feelings on the detriment claim, making a total award of £19,298. The tribunal made no award of interest and recorded that there was no prescribed element.