Ms F Buchanan v Citizens Advice & Rights Fife — 2026

Ms F Buchanan’s complaints of protected-disclosure detriment and automatically unfair dismissal against Citizens Advice & Rights Fife were dismissed. She worked as a Carers Income Maximisation Worker from 20 September 2020 until her summary dismissal on 24 March 2025. She withdrew her application to add an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, so the tribunal did not determine the general fairness of her dismissal under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The dispute concerned instructions to use the respondent’s 8x8 telephone system for client calls and its CASTLE case management system for client records. Calls were recorded as part of an AI pilot intended to produce written case notes. Ms Buchanan raised data protection concerns and used her mobile telephone exclusively. She also retained clients’ medical information in her email account instead of uploading it to CASTLE. The tribunal found that she had repeatedly agreed to use the telephone system but continued not to do so. The respondent sought external legal advice and amended the client greeting.

The tribunal accepted four protected disclosures: the grievance of 2 April 2024, the email of 13 May 2024, an email in February 2025 concerning medical records, and the letter of 24 February 2025. Her knowledge of data protection supported a reasonable belief that legal obligations were being breached, and protecting clients’ data rights was a matter of public interest. Her emails of 20 and 21 November 2023 did not qualify because they sought clarification or expressed personal views without sufficiently stating a belief in a relevant breach. The email of 6 January 2025 raised questions about the Caldicott Principles, medical records and PVG membership; it did not establish a reasonable belief in a relevant breach.

ACAS early conciliation began on 11 April 2025. Applying section 48(3), the tribunal treated 12 January 2025 as the relevant cutoff and held that numerous earlier detriment allegations were out of time. These included earlier disciplinary threats, monitoring, restrictions on development opportunities, the proposed departure payment and the alleged refusal of flexible working. The decision to start the performance improvement plan was also out of time. The claimant did not establish that timely presentation was not reasonably practicable. The tribunal considered her access to union advice and found no apparent reason why she could not have contacted ACAS during September to November 2024.

The remaining performance-management complaints failed on their merits. The tribunal accepted that Ms McNeilly issued the final written warning because she believed requirements concerning case closure and case notes remained unmet. Her decision was not materially influenced by protected disclosures. Mr Redpath knew about the proposed warning, but the evidence did not show that he made or influenced that decision. The tribunal also found that management support was available to Ms Buchanan and that she had not requested a reduced workload while taking part in internal procedures.