EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105389/2024 Held in Dundee on and March 2025 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Miss H Robertson v Represented by:10 Mr J Lawson - Solicitor Unicare – Homecare Ltd — 2024

The tribunal accepted on the balance of probabilities that the claimant spoke to Mrs Mason about service user X's behaviour in November 2023, even though those calls were not recorded contemporaneously. It also accepted that X made repeated comments about marrying the claimant, touched her hair and, on one occasion, grabbed her arm; Mrs Mason later contacted X on 8 and 30 January 2024 and told the claimant to report further problems.

Applying s.43A and s.43B ERA 1996 and the approach in Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, the tribunal found that the claimant had made disclosures of information and that she believed the conduct tended to show wrongdoing affecting health and safety. It considered the public-interest question carefully and said the case was finely balanced, but held that the claimant's own written complaints showed concern only for her own wellbeing and safety. On that basis, the claimant did not establish that her disclosures were made in the public interest, and the tribunal also found that any such belief was not objectively reasonable.

Because there was no qualifying protected disclosure, the whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 and the constructive automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 were both dismissed. The tribunal therefore did not need to determine the alleged detriments, the constructive dismissal causation issue, or whether the claimant had affirmed any breach of contract.

Earlier discrimination and harassment claims on sex, marriage and civil partnership, and age had already been withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52 by a legal officer's judgment dated 10 December 2024, and the s.39(2) EqA claim was withdrawn during the final hearing. No monetary award was made.