Claimant v HC-One Limited — 2019

The tribunal identified three complaints: automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure, detriment for making a protected disclosure, and unauthorised deduction from wages. It held that questions asked on 25 December 2017 and the later conversation with Peter Venus were not shown to be qualifying disclosures, but that the claimant's email of 3 January 2018 was a qualifying and protected disclosure because it conveyed information about medication and alcohol practices which she reasonably believed could endanger residents and which she believed were raised in the public interest.

On dismissal, the tribunal held that the protected disclosure was not the reason or principal reason for termination. It accepted that the dismissal process had procedural shortcomings and stated that, had this been an ordinary unfair dismissal case, it would almost certainly have found the dismissal unfair on procedural grounds. However, the tribunal found that the actual reason for ending the claimant's probation was her pattern of absences and leaving or not attending shifts, together with some concern about incomplete training, and not the protected disclosure.

On detriment, the tribunal accepted that there were issues with delayed holiday pay and delayed December wages, and that compulsory training was expected to be completed in the claimant's own time. It found, however, that those matters were either explained by payroll or administrative issues, were standard practice, were not proved, or were unrelated to the protected disclosure. The bullying/harassment and risk assessment allegations were also rejected as causally unrelated. The wages complaint listed separately in the issues was dismissed because no evidence was led on it.