Agata Stankiewicz v Scottish Prison Service — 2026

The Employment Tribunal dismissed Agata Stankiewicz's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment against the Scottish Prison Service. She worked as a prison officer from 8 January 2018 to 31 May 2025 and gave notice of resignation on 27 March 2025.

The tribunal found that her emails of 4, 14 and 22 August 2024 were protected disclosures. They reported bullying and failures by officers to work together in Ratho Hall, where there were two officers per landing and officers needed to support each other for safety. Applying Kilraine v Wandsworth London Borough Council, the tribunal assessed the information in its workplace context. It accepted that she genuinely and reasonably believed the disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show that officers' health and safety had been or were likely to be endangered.

Jill Dollard's investigation found a case to answer concerning the conduct of Katie Runciman and Cary Bankier. John O'Connor subsequently decided there was no case to answer at their disciplinary hearings, but both colleagues were moved to other halls. The claimant accepted that Ratho Hall became a good working environment after they left. The tribunal rejected her allegations that the respondent had failed to address the conduct, mishandled the investigation or failed to mitigate known workplace stressors.

The tribunal found that the decision to transfer the claimant from Ratho Hall to Hermiston Hall, communicated on 21 November 2024, was a detriment on the ground that she had made protected disclosures. It rejected evidence that the transfers were unrelated to her disclosures, noting the decision to move officers involved in the misconduct investigation. It also found no cogent explanation for departing from the Dignity at Work Policy, which said complainants would not normally be moved unless they requested it or exceptional circumstances applied. The transfer decision amounted to a fundamental breach of her employment contract.

The allegation that the respondent subjected her to a further whistleblowing detriment when she moved to Band C Operations in February 2025 failed. She had been offered an alternative Band D post in Glenesk Hall and chose to step down. The tribunal found that her choice was motivated largely by her personal and family circumstances. Her salary in Band C was more than £10,000 lower than in Band D; this figure concerned her pay, not compensation awarded by the tribunal.

For constructive dismissal, the tribunal considered fundamental breach, resignation in response and affirmation of the contract, citing Western Excavating v Sharp. The claimant described her Operations work as 'fine' and said she resigned because of further hostile and unprofessional interactions with the two colleagues, having found another job. She had not reported those interactions to the respondent, and her resignation letter did not identify a contractual breach. The tribunal found that she did not resign in response to the November breach and had waived it through the passage of time and her return to work in Operations.