Case 4111836/2019 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4111836/2019 Held at Edinburgh on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and March 2021 and May 2021 (deliberation day) Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Member Mrs L Brown Tribunal Member Mr D Frew Mr M Ford
The claimant, a Pensions Administrator at the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, raised concerns about police injury benefits, firefighter benefits, and the final salary link in public sector pension schemes. The tribunal found that, except for one disclosure to the FCA, the Pensions Regulator and the Pensions Ombudsman where there was insufficient information, the claimant had made protected disclosures in relation to those issues.
The tribunal rejected the protected disclosure detriment claim. It found that the claimant's moves between teams were connected to operational matters, a stress reduction plan and working relationships, and were not detriments. It also found that the disciplinary process was initiated because of the claimant's conduct, including alleged misuse of official information, failure to follow instructions and providing information contrary to SPPA guidance, rather than because he had made protected disclosures.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for conduct. It held that the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. The disciplinary and appeal processes were found to be fair, and the ordinary unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal claims were dismissed. As no claim succeeded, no remedy arose.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA did not succeed. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not that the claimant had made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim did not succeed. The tribunal found conduct was a potentially fair reason and that dismissal was fair under section 98(4) ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B ERA did not succeed. The tribunal found that the alleged matters were not detriments, or were not done on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.