Case 4108257/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Gaurino v (1) Thistle Healthcare Limited (2) Mr Dev Fowdar (3) Mr Kishan Fowdar (4) Ms Rhonda Ormshaw — 2019
- Case reference
- 4108257/2018
- Decision date
- 28 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Gaurino
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge M Whitcombe in Glasgow on 26 June 2019. The tribunal determined a preliminary issue on the claimant's public interest disclosure case and also addressed the unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent. No lay members are listed in the judgment.
On the whistleblowing issue, the tribunal found that the claimant did not make either of the two alleged protected disclosures. On that basis, the claims that all respondents subjected her to detriments because she had made protected disclosures failed and were dismissed.
The unfair dismissal claim against Thistle Healthcare Limited was also dismissed. The reason given was that the claimant did not have the continuous service required to bring a claim for unfair dismissal.
Oral reasons were given at the hearing. The claimant initially requested written reasons but later retracted that request, so no written reasons were provided unless requested in writing within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | At the preliminary issue, the tribunal found that the claimant did not make either of the two alleged protected disclosures. The detriment claims against all respondents, said to arise from protected disclosures, were therefore dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent was dismissed because the claimant lacked the continuous service required to bring such a claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
How we got this data
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.