Mrs TI Edafienene v Linc-Cymru Housing Association Limited and 1 other — 2026

The Tribunal dismissed the protected-disclosure detriment complaint. It found that, during the October 2024 conversation with Evidence Chapwanya, the Claimant asked whether Jade Frias knew about a medication error and what action had been taken, but did not convey facts about an alleged failure to complete Accident and Incident paperwork. The Tribunal therefore found no disclosure of information capable of constituting a qualifying disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Without a protected disclosure, the detriment complaints could not succeed.

The Tribunal dismissed the direct race discrimination complaint concerning the decision to advertise a Lead Nurse position as a night role. It found no facts from which discrimination could be inferred and accepted the Respondents' evidence that the role was placed on nights in response to a Priority Action Notice from Care Inspectorate Wales. It found no evidential basis for concluding that the decision was because the Claimant was Nigerian, black or African, so the burden of proof did not shift to the Respondents.

The Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the Claimant's conduct concerning the recording of the administration of Buprenorphine on 3 June 2025. The Claimant signed the Controlled Drug Register without witnessing the drug's preparation or administration, did not verify that it had been administered correctly, and asked for the register time to match the earlier EMAR entry. The Tribunal rejected her contention that the register served only as a stock record and found that the Respondents had applied the applicable Medication Policy and controlled-drug procedure.

The Tribunal found that the Respondents conducted a reasonable investigation, had reasonable grounds for their belief in gross misconduct, and genuinely held that belief. It took account of the Claimant's previous involvement in medication errors, the live written warning, performance management support, and the differing circumstances of the other staff involved. The Claimant received notice of the allegations, an opportunity to respond at the investigation and disciplinary stages, representation at the disciplinary hearing, and a right of appeal.

Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the BHS v Burchell test, the Tribunal found that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It therefore dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. As all complaints were dismissed at this liability-only hearing, no monetary remedy was awarded or determined.