Case 4105503/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105503/2023 Hearing Held at Edinburgh on 18, 19, and February 2025, and Members’ Meeting on April 2025 following the production of Written Submissions Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: Z van Zwanenberg Tribunal Member: T Lithgow Lydia Magloire
The claimant, Lydia Magloire, reported an incident involving volunteer Mr X on 30 May 2023 and gave a written statement on 8 June 2023. The tribunal found that those reports amounted to a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996 because they tended to show a criminal offence and were reasonably believed to be in the public interest. It also held that the same complaint amounted to an allegation that Mr X had contravened the Equality Act 2010 by committing sexual harassment against her.
The tribunal upheld the whistleblowing detriment claim only in relation to the letter of 12 July 2023. That letter refused annual leave for 27 July to 17 August 2023, threatened that taking the leave would be treated as resignation, and added a broad final warning for unsatisfactory conduct. The tribunal found the letter to be threatening and excessive, and concluded that it was sent because the claimant had made the protected disclosure. The other alleged detriments were rejected, and the dismissal itself could not be relied on as a detriment under s.47B.
On dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent's attitude to the claimant changed after the disclosure and that the 21 August 2023 dismissal was primarily because she had raised the protected disclosure. The dismissal letter gave no reason, while the respondent's evidence referred to conduct, performance and the holiday issue. The tribunal inferred from the timing, the warning issued on 12 July, the handling of the grievance, and the lack of a clear alternative explanation that the protected disclosure was the reason for dismissal. It therefore held that she was automatically unfairly dismissed under s.103A ERA 1996.
The tribunal also upheld the victimisation claim under the Equality Act 2010, but only for the same 12 July 2023 letter. It held that the claimant had done a protected act by alleging sex discrimination/sexual harassment, and that the letter was a detriment imposed because of that protected act. The remaining victimisation allegations, including being asked to work on her birthday, the text messages about resignation, the grievance handling, and the complaint about accompaniment or interpretation at the grievance meeting, were rejected.
The indirect race discrimination claim failed. The tribunal found that the respondent did not apply a practice requiring workers to speak English in meetings, and in any event the claimant did not show that she was placed at a disadvantage compared with UK nationals. At remedy, the tribunal made no basic award because the claimant lacked two years' service. It awarded £1,642.48 for financial loss, calculated as 8 weeks' net pay at £205.31 per week, and £6,000 for injury to feelings in the lowest Vento band. The tribunal noted that the claimant had obtained new full-time work from 4 December 2023, so no future loss was found.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Section 47B detriment claim: the tribunal upheld the 12 July 2023 holiday-refusal and final-warning letter as a detriment caused by the protected disclosure. The other alleged detriments were rejected, and the dismissal itself could not be treated as a detriment under s.47B(2)(b). | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim: the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 21 August 2023 because she made the protected disclosure on 30 May and 8 June 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held the claimant's complaint about the 29 May 2023 incident amounted to an allegation of sex discrimination/sexual harassment, and upheld the 12 July 2023 letter as a detriment for doing that protected act. The other alleged victimisation detriments were rejected. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination failed because the tribunal found no PCP requiring workers to speak English in meetings and, in any event, no relevant disadvantage was proved. | Dismissed | Race | — |
The 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.
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.