Member Mr T Jones Tribunal Member Ms M McAllister Mrs M Currie v Four Seasons Health Care (Scotland) Ltd — 2024

The claimant, Mrs M Currie, was employed by Four Seasons Health Care Group as a care assistant at St Margaret’s Care Home in Edinburgh from 18 July 2023 until her dismissal on 5 February 2024, confirmed by letter dated 9 February 2024. Her sole claim was that she had been dismissed because she made a protected disclosure, contrary to s.103A ERA 1996. The respondent accepted that she had made a qualifying disclosure, so the only issue was the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal.

The tribunal found that on 12 December 2023 the claimant raised concerns about a resident’s bruising and bleeding, that the concerns were referred through the respondent’s whistleblowing arrangements on 17 December 2023, and that internal investigators later concluded there were explanations for the issues and no indication of neglect or abuse. The tribunal accepted that whistleblowing was encouraged within the organisation and that Ms Martin had told the claimant she could raise the matter further if she wished.

When Ms Johnston reviewed the claimant’s records before a return-to-work meeting, she identified long-standing attendance problems, repeated failure to work to the end of shifts, and a failure to complete the probationary review because of absence. At the probationary review meeting on 5 February 2024, the claimant was told that the level of absence and sickness was not sustainable, that she could not be relied upon to attend her shifts, and that she was not fulfilling her agreed hours. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that these matters, rather than the disclosure, were the reason for dismissal.

Applying the burden of proof principles in Kuzel and considering causation under s.103A ERA 1996 and the standard test under s.98 ERA 1996, the tribunal concluded that there was no causal link between the protected disclosure and the dismissal. It noted that the timing of the dismissal was influenced by the claimant’s absence and the involvement of Ms Johnston rather than by the disclosure, and it dismissed the claim.