Ms S Lindores-Williams v Fertility Network UK — 2025

Ms Lindores-Williams worked for Fertility Network UK from 27 May 2019 until 4 April 2024, latterly as Scotland Branch Coordinator. The tribunal found that Disclosure 1 in her 20 February 2024 email to trustees, about the Scottish Government grant and whether its terms were being complied with, was a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996, and that Disclosure 4 on 23 February 2024 was protected because it supplemented Disclosure 1. It held that the disclosures about Sarah Baird's contract and the expense-data/shared-drive issue were not protected disclosures, and it rejected the claimant's fraud framing of Disclosure 1 while accepting that she honestly and reasonably believed there was a breach of the grant terms and that the matter was in the public interest.

On the s.47B detriment claim, the tribunal accepted that several complained-of events happened, but held that the respondent did not act on the ground of the protected disclosures. It found that the lack of substantive response to the February emails, the grievance outcome on 22 February 2024, the grievance appeal outcome, the accidental inclusion in an email chain on 1 March 2024, the 5 March 2024 staffing update, the suspension of laptop access on 6 March 2024, the 20 March 2024 request for social media passwords, the 5 April 2024 confidential-information email, and the later lack of substantive responses to data requests were either not detriments or were explained by legitimate reasons such as workload pressure, sick leave, confidentiality concerns, or the claimant's resignation. The tribunal described the respondent as operating under crisis conditions and found no basis for the disclosures having influenced the treatment complained of.

The constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal case failed because the tribunal found no express or implied contractual right to paid overtime and no repudiatory breach of contract or destruction of trust and confidence. It held that the respondent's TOIL policy governed additional hours, that the second-job disciplinary process had reasonable and proper cause, and that the grant-management, grievance, and non-response complaints did not reach the level required for constructive dismissal. The related 18-hour overtime claim for £263.88 also failed, whether pleaded as unlawful deductions from wages or breach of contract. No monetary award was made.