Ms H Taqafi v Represented by Mr B McKinlay Solicitor Shakti Women’s Aid — 2025

The claimant worked for the respondent, Shakti Women’s Aid, from 1 August 2022 as a Children and Young People Support Worker. The dispute arose from two group activities in March and April 2024, at Edinburgh Castle and the Botanic Gardens, when the claimant raised concerns that colleagues C1 and C2 had left the activities early. The tribunal found that on 1 March 2024 she told NR only that she did not know where C1 and C2 were and that they had not participated in the activity, and that on 26 April 2024 her email said they had not stayed with the families and that she thought this was wrong. It also found that, in a later email, the claimant said her intention in reporting the matter was to improve teamwork.

Applying section 43A and 43B ERA 1996 and the guidance in Kilraine and Simpson, the tribunal held that neither communication had sufficient factual content and specificity to tend to show a breach of legal obligation or a risk to health and safety. It found that the claimant did not reasonably believe the disclosures were made in the public interest or that they showed a relevant failing. The whistleblowing detriment complaint under section 47B ERA and the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA therefore both failed.

For the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal applied Western Excavating, Malik, Lewis, Omilaju and Kaur. It held that the most recent act relied on by the claimant was the written investigation outcome sent on 8 July 2024, but that outcome was not itself a repudiatory breach and did not downplay or minimise her concerns. The tribunal also rejected the allegations that NR distorted the report, micromanaged the claimant, spoke to her disrespectfully, or created a breach of trust and confidence through the challenged comments and emails. It found that the "all in your head" remark was clarified as an attempt to reassure the claimant, and GP later upheld the appeal only to the extent that the wording was inappropriate. On that basis the tribunal held that the claimant was not constructively dismissed and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. No monetary award was made.