Ms V Lough v Respondent — 2021

At the final hearing on 1 May 2021, held by CVP, neither respondent had entered a response or appeared. The tribunal found the claimant to be a reliable and credible witness. It accepted that she had not agreed to furlough or to any reduction in pay, so the first respondent's payment of 80% of wages during furlough was an unlawful deduction. It also found that accrued holiday pay, notice pay, and the obligation to provide a compliant statement of particulars under section 1 ERA 1996 had not been met.

The tribunal accepted that at a meeting on 11 August 2020 the claimant and colleagues raised concerns about compliance with Scottish Government COVID guidance, the use of furlough funds while the claimant was required to work, and the absence of steps to ensure a safe working environment while she was undergoing treatment for cancer. It held that these were protected disclosures within section 43B ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the second respondent became angry at the meeting, and that he decided to dismiss the claimant because she had made those disclosures. The first respondent was vicariously liable for the second respondent's conduct, and the tribunal referred to Timis v Osipov [2019] I.C.R. 655 when explaining that an award could be made against a co-worker in a detriment claim that included dismissal.

On remedy, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and schedule of loss, including a period with no income, subsequent lower pay, pension loss, and extra travel costs. It found that, given her age and medical history, she was unlikely to obtain alternative employment and therefore awarded 52 weeks of ongoing loss. It assessed injury to feelings in the mid band of Vento and awarded £12,500, with interest from 11 August 2020 to the calculation date. The prescribed element was £4,781.87 and the recoupment period ran from 28 August 2020 to 28 December 2020. The judgment ordered £2,554.94 against the first respondent and a further joint and several award of £18,032.63 in relation to the whistleblowing detriment claim.