Miss Z Parry v University of South Wales: 1603674/2024 and 1600003/2025
REASONS
[1]This had been listed as a wholly in person hearing save for case management on the afternoon of the first day. On the second day, following application from the Claimant’s counsel, it was determined that it was in the interests of justice for the Claimant’s representative to participate remotely. It was also agreed that the oral judgment would be delivered remotely and a direction was given that that any hearing on Friday 3 July 2026 would be transmitted by online video to enable observers who complied with conditions to watch or listen to the proceedings. The Claims and Early Conciliation First Claim[2]There are two claims in this case, that have been consolidated:a. On 22 April 2024, the Claimant contacted ACAS and on 3 June 2024, an Early Conciliation Certificate (the “First EC Certificate”) was issued [24]. On 4 July 2024, the Claimant filed her first claim (“First Claim”) [25]; andb. On 25 September 2024, the Claimant again contacted ACAS and on 6 November 2024 a second EC Certificate (“Second EC Certificate”) was issued [110]. On 6 December 2024, the Claimant filed her second claim (“Second Claim”) [25].[3]On 3 July 2025, Judge Ryan had determined that the Claimant was a disabled person by reason of symptoms consistent with Hypothyroidism and Perimenopause and had been since the autumn of 2022 where the effective date of termination of employment was 10 July 2024 [182]. List of Issues[4]The parties had prepared a List of Issues which had been agreed between the parties as directed at an earlier preliminary hearing. Following discussion with the parties, the draft attached as an Appendix to this Written Reasons was agreed with, and adopted by, the Tribunal as the issues to be determined.The Evidence
[5]The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and from the following witnesses for the Claimanta. Dr Rehana Karim, who had been employed as a Senior Lecturer in the Respondent until the termination of her employment by reason of redundancy in April 2026;b. Professor Gareth Owen, who remains employed by the Respondent within the Sustainable Environment and Research Centre;c. Mrs Katie Bird, Lecturer in Forensic Science who had left the Respondent’s employment in August 2024 having signed a settlement agreement; andd. Mr Mark Boulter, who had left the Respondent in April 2024 having signed a settlement agreement.[6]The Tribunal also had witness statements from:a. Dr Sheri Murrell, Lecturer in Forensic Science; andb. Helen Higgins, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science who gave statement evidence regarding her own grievances of February, August and October 2023 [2537].[7]The following witnesses gave evidence for the Respondent: c. Hayley Burns, Interim Deputy Dean from October 2023 and Deputy Dean until July 2025;1 d. Antonia Faithfull, HR Business Partner; e. Mark Milton, Chief Operating Officer for Respondent until December 2024 and dismissal manager; f. Rhian Kinsella, Head of Subject for Biological and Forensic Science and Claimant’s line manager from April 2023; and g. Debbie Jones, Lay Governor on Board of Governors and dismissal appeal manager.[8]All witnesses relied upon witness statements, the Claimant an additional Disability Impact Statement [197] which were taken as read. Save for Sheri Murrell and Helen Higgins, all witnesses were all subject to cross-examination, the Tribunal’s questions and re-examination. 1 Additional witness statement permitted following clarification of the Claimant’s claim[9]The Tribunal was referred selectively to the hearing bundle of relevant documentary evidence (“Bundle”). References to the hearing Bundle (pages 1- 2979) appear in square brackets [ ] below. These are references to the hard copy bundle and not electronic PDF automated numbering. Assessment of the evidence[10]It is not necessary to reject a witness’s evidence, in whole or in part, by regarding the witnesses as unreliable or as not telling the truth. The Tribunal naturally looks for the witness evidence to be internally consistent and consistent with the documentary evidence. It assesses a range of matters including:a. whether the evidence is probable,b. whether it is corroborated by other evidence from witnesses or contemporaneous records of documents,c. how reliable is witness’ recall; andd. motive.[11]The Tribunal found that as many of the events under consideration, and in particular some of the disclosures the Claimant had relied on, had taken place as early as the Spring of 2020, and were somewhat historic, particular scrutiny was given to the contemporaneous documentation.[12]The Respondent has challenged the credibility of the Respondent’s witnesses, inviting us to find that they did not give credible evidence; that in particular the evidence of Mark Milton and Rhian Kinsella was of poor quality and could not be safely relied on, that they were both defensive and at times evasive.[13]We found the opposite to be the case. Whilst Rhian Kinsella did on one occasion refuse to engage in answering a particular question, this was on the basis that a hypothetical question had been asked of her which she was not prepared to surmise upon. The Tribunal made it clear that she was not going to be required to answer such hypothetical propositions and that she was a witness of fact. We found her to be a clear compelling witness and, where generally there was a dispute, we preferred her evidence to that of the Claimant.[14]We also found Mark Milton also to be a reliable and credible witness. Facts Employment HistoryFacts
[15]The Respondent is a university of higher education with campus in Cardiff, in Pontypridd and in Newport. It employs around 2,000-3,000 staff with an executive management team and staff operating within a number of faculties within the University. One of those faculties was the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Applied Sciences ( the “Faculty”) and within that Faculty there were a number of Schools including the School of Applied Sciences (the “School”/(“Applied Sciences School”) that at the date of the commencement of the Claimant’s employment encompassed the disciplines of:a. Chemistry;b. Forensic and Analytical Science; andc. Earth, Space and Environment.[16]The School also employed a number of Biology and Science Technicians that operated across all courses and provided support to the academics in lab preparation and demonstration.[17]The Claimant began her employment with the Respondent at the Pontypridd campus on a temporary basis on 11 November 2013 as a Senior Technical officer within the Chemistry team supporting the Chemistry academics, her employment becoming permanent on 1 October 2014 [223-235]. The Claimant was line managed:a. from November 2013 to September 2015 by Senior Technical Officer, Gareth Williams; andb. from September 2015 until February 2018 by Technical Demonstrator Michael Lott2.[18]In February 2018, the Claimant was promoted to Senior Lecturer in the Forensic Science department [245] and in that role had a series of line managers [235][246]:a. From February 2018 to March 2023, Paul Jones, Academic Subject Manager: Forensic Science;b. On an interim basis3, from March 2023 to April 2023, Hayley Burns, Deputy Dean of Faculty; andc. From April 2023 to the end of her employment, Rhian Kinsella, Head of School. 2 The Claimant was in a personal relationship with Michael Lott for a number of years. 3 This was as a result of Paul Jones stepping down from the role.[19]The relevant terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment were set out in writing that included the letter of employment, written particulars of employment (“Written Particulars”) [236], her job description [259] as well as the University’s contractual policies including:a. A Grievance Policy [264], that provided that the procedure would apply to all employees other than when excluded. These included where there had been a failure to raise and progress the grievance without unreasonable delay (normally be within 3 months), where the issue was governed by a separate procedure (e.g. Whistleblowing) were the same or similar grievance had been raised and dealt with previously [265];b. A Dismissal Policy [335]. This provided that the procedure, which included a formal meeting and a right of appeal, would normally be used in the event that the Respondent was contemplating dismissal in one or more circumstances set out in the policy that included, some other substantial reason (“SOSR”). The policy provided examples including: i. Irretrievable breakdown of working relationships; and ii. Loss of trust and confidence;c. A Dignity at Work Policy [339]: andd. A Whistleblowing Policy [1353][20]Upon commencing her role as a Senior Lecturer, the Claimant had Course Leadership responsibilities for two courses:a. the BSc Analytical and Forensic Science course, until its closure in July 2022; andb. the BSc Forensic Science with Criminology course until the termination of her employment.[21]The Claimant was also routinely a Module Leader for typically three to four modules.[22]The Claimant’s ‘Hours of Work’ were set out in the Letter of Appointment as 37 hours per week. The Written Particulars provided that formal scheduled teaching responsibilities should not exceed a total of 550 hours each year which was accepted to be the organisation’s average teaching hours [237]. The ‘Working Year’ was also defined within the Written Particulars as not normally exceeding 38 weeks. The University’s teaching year was predominantly spread across two of the three terms, broadly from the end of September each year to May the following year.[23]The Claimant’s workload was notionally a division of duties into three parts: teaching, research and administrative/academic responsibilities. The Claimant’s teaching responsibilities included delivery of lectures, practical sessions and project supervision for the student cohorts that included those at Foundation and Undergraduate as well as those on post-graduate Masters courses. She gave live evidence about responsibilities as to her non-teaching duties including marking, course monitoring reports, particularly for revalidation (every 4-5 years) and reaccreditation with external bodies (every 7 years,) most notably in 2021/2022, marketing activities such as Open Days and responding generally to staff and student queries. Her live evidence was that these administrative obligations significantly limited the time available for research or scholarly activity.[24]In relation to research, the Claimant confirmed that she was undertaking a PgCLTHE, that she completed in September 2022, and had commenced a PhD in around October 2022 that had been disrupted by her sickness absences in April 2023 and again in February 2024 and has yet to be completed. Employee Engagement Survey 2019 and Insight Report 2020[25]In the summer of 2019, the Respondent undertook a Faculty wide ‘Employee Engagement Survey’ staff providing staff with an opportunity to feedback on experiences in working in the Faculty and highlight issues they felt should be addressed [273] (“Employee Engagement Survey”). Only 205 staff completed the survey, representing a 53% response rate based on 387 eligible staff employed by the Faculty.[26]Questions related to individual jobs and development, the Faculty itself as well as the Respondent organisation and Employee Engagement. A RAG (Red, Amber, Green) report gave an overview of the survey’ results with figures showing the percentage of respondents to the survey who had provided a positive response to any question posed, with a higher result indicating a more positive response. Colour coding identified if a group had a more positive or more negative view than the overall Faculty result. Comments were largely positive with negative generic comments As the RAG was Faculty wide, whilst comments were included it was not possible to attribute specific concerns to any particular School within the Faculty.[27]The Employee Engagement Survey reflected both positive and negative outcomes with broader lower satisfaction within the Applied Sciences School than the overall Faculty result.[28]Following on, and in response to the Employee Engagement Survey, the Applied Sciences School established a number of workshops for staff feedback and the Claimant attended one such meeting. External consultants, ‘Insight’, were then subsequently tasked with producing a report from the results of such an exercise and by February 2020, just before the Covid-19 pandemic and resultant lockdown, had produced that report (“Insight Report”).4 The Claimant’s notes of her review of that Insight Report indicated that positive points included student satisfaction and technical resources as well as workplace flexibility, expertise and support. Culture and communication as well as school leadership, the Advanced Workload Model (“AWM”) and time-tabling were listed as negative. The AWM provides unionbacked guidance about roles, responsibilities and teaching hour requirements and historically has been negotiated with the recognised trade unions[29]On 6 February 2020 Dawn Story, Head of School for Applied Science wrote to staff within the School indicating that she was committed to taking action and that a Staff Engagement Action plan would be circulated [295][301]. She later reminded staff that any change to culture would not be immediate, but that poor values and behaviours were unacceptable drawing attention to the Respondent’s Dignity at Work Policy providing details of the Dignity at Work Advisers within the Faculty [296].[30]It appears that Staff Engagement Plan was produced by March 2020 [301] and as part of that, Wellbeing Officers were introduced to support staff, a role that the Claimant undertook subsequently a year later and from March 2021. It included actions and proposals for key concerns raised by staff and included areas of improvement of professional behaviours, communication and transparency, leadership and management roles/structures and the establishment of agreed processes for staff workload planning and timetabling that included a promotion of the AWM Guidance to ensure staff awareness [305].[31]Whilst those were the general themes it was far from clear what the specific issues were within the School or indeed the Forensic Science or Chemistry departments. However, it appears that a number of distinct issues were causing concern.[32]Within Forensic Science, the Claimant’s line manager, Paul Jones, appears to have had significant sick leave caused by difficult personal circumstances and albeit it was far from clear how long this state of affairs had continued, the suggestion from the Claimant later in her email to Hayley Burns in 2022 was that this had been since around the commencement of the Claimant’s time as Snr Lecturer in 2018. In addition, tension between certain of the academic staff within Forensic Science and certain of the technical staff was also evident, albeit the Tribunal is unable to make any positive findings as to the source or commencement of that issue.[33]Within Chemistry, some staff including Dr Rehana Karim had it appears what the Tribunal would term their ‘differences’ with a particular Academic Subject Manager within that department. We make no findings on either the content and/or 4 Whilst a copy of the Insight Report was not in evidence, a copy of the Claimant’s own summary following her review of the Insight report created in September 2022 was included in the Bundle [285]. responsibility for those differences save that we accepted the evidence from Dr Rehana Karim that she personally felt that she had workplace challenges with that individual arising from her own personal interactions with them and relating to her own role and her workload5.[34]Either way, the Claimant knew something about Rehana Karim’s issues and gave live evidence in relation to her own personal concerns about that particular Academic Subject Manager when they subsequently became the Claimant’s temporary line manager in Paul Jones’ absence. She also confirmed that her personal concerns had been informed by the concerns some staff within Chemistry department had held. PID7 – Disclosures to Dawn Story[35]By 10 March 2020 the Claimant met Dawn Story to complain about the Academic Subject Manager, then her temporary line manager. In live evidence the Claimant confirmed that her concern arose a few days after the manager had taken over line management responsibility for her and related to a specific issue after the Claimant she had decided to provide a 1:1 lab session with a student. The Claimant was reminded that she should not be supporting students outside of timetabling. It is apparent that the Claimant took exception over this.[36]She informed Dawn Story by email (11 March 2020 [300]) that she was ‘unable to continue working comfortably in [her] role’ with them as her direct manager and she considered their behaviour inappropriate and unprofessional, indicating that it was having an effect on her mental health and wellbeing and that she had sought professional advice and was compiling an account of her experiences which she would endeavour to complete those by the following weekend [300/298]. She indicated that whilst not normally adverse to mediation she did not consider on this occasion, that she and the manager had any personal issues to resolve. She indicated that her complaint encompassed their general behaviour and the adverse effects on other members of staff at school.[37]By 26 March 2020, the UK faced the Covid-19 pandemic and was placed into lockdown as a result. There was an abrupt transition to online delivery of teaching and the University being closed and the resultant administrative burden arising from uncertainty in teaching and students.[38]The Claimant relies on subsequent individual disclosures to Dawn Story over a period from 1 April 2020 to 13 October 2021 where she claims that she challenged the well-being of staff and raised serious concerns regarding mental health. 5 WSRK§25 {94}[39]A few days later and as nothing had been heard from the Claimant regarding her complaint, Dawn Story emailed and asked if she still wished to take the matter forward. The Claimant responded the same day by email on 1 April 2020, again confirming that she was seeking professional advice before she did so [307]. In that email the Claimant stated that: “I am confident that my concerns are not a kneejerk reaction to recent personal circumstances at work and I strongly believe that the matter I've raised is a matter of concern to other members of the School's staff. I myself am concerned regarding the health and wellbeing of my colleagues, and endeavour to ensure that the workplace is a professional environment, free from harassment, bullying, nepotism and other unnecessary stresses. I thoroughly enjoy my role at the University and have the utmost respect for all the staff and students that I encounter on a daily basis.”[40]The Claimant relies on this as a disclosure or part of a disclosure of information.[41]Nothing was received from the Claimant and on 1 July 2020 the Claimant was contacted and reminded that she had still not set out her allegation against the manager. The Claimant responded on the same day that she had been advised that nothing would be done about her concerns and she had been requested to monitor and record all future incidents and that she was arranging to discuss the matter with a legal adviser [313]. She stated as follows: ‘I have made it clear that my health and well-being has been affected as a result of these matters, which I have been advised to follow up with the appropriate departments at USW. It was advised that I revisit my GP to discuss and make a record of my health and wellbeing concerns as a result of these matters. With my current workload and commitments, I may not get the quality time to complete these procedures immediately but I will hopefully get around to doing so very soon.’[42]She relies on this as also forming a disclosure, or part of a disclosure of information.[43]Either way no complaint was submitted by the Claimant. In live evidence the Claimant accepted that she chose not to, and accepted that the emails appeared to reflect more of a concern that was specific to her and did not appear to be any public interest disclosure. Indeed, the Claimant accepted in live evidence that her written communication had been framed in personal terms and contained limited detail about colleagues but that her personal concerns about her manager had been informed by concerns other staff had held within the Chemistry department.[44]Whilst this might be right, and it may have been that the Claimant even cited that she held such concerns as result, it does not follow that the Claimant disclosed information. Furthermore, other than making generalised statements about her own opinion or state of mind about the health and wellbeing of other staff and what she wanted to achieve i.e. ensuring a good workplace environment, the Tribunal found that the Claimant disclosed no information in those emails to Dawn Story. Nothing further came of the Claimant’s own personal complaint about her temporary manager or at all.[45]On 8 December 2020, the Claimant accompanied a colleague, Helen Higgins, at a Microsoft Teams meeting arranged with Paul Jones and Dawn Story [326]. The Claimant relies on what was said in that meeting as a protected disclosure. What was said in that meeting and what specific concerns were expressed by the Claimant in that meeting is not in statement evidence of the Claimant however only general evidence that it related to ‘workload, timetable issues, treatment of staff, poor student experience and staff turnover rates’6. Helen Higgins’ statement evidence does not identify what was discussed at that meeting.[46]The Claimant was cross-examined on what had been said and despite having further opportunity in live evidence to clarify what specific information had been communicated, maintained only that she raised general concerns about staff welfare, management conduct and systematic issues including a culture of bullying and an inadequate response to the Employee Staff Survey findings.[47]Again, other than finding that statements of her own generalised ‘concerns’, the Tribunal found that there was nothing specific in what had been disclosed to Dawn Story at that meeting, no disclosure of information and no facts conveyed.[48]In March 2021, the Claimant took up the role as Wellbeing Officer and it appears by June 2021, the Claimant had become part of a group who had general concerns about the Faculty, a group of staff that also included but was not limited to Professor Gareth Owen and Dr Rehana Karim [1239].[49]It also appeared that any issues held differed, with the Claimant confirming in live evidence that ‘bullying’ was not a label that she attached to Paul Jones, rather her issue with him was his absenteeism and ineffective management of the Forensic Sciences team, whereas Rehana Karim, within Chemistry, held a very different set of personal concerns.[50]In live evidence the Claimant denied forming any such group to challenge management, instead describing collective attempts by staff to raise legitimate concerns regarding workload, staff shortages but accepted in cross-examination however that they were involved in planning what was described as a group grievance. She did not accept that she led or organised the group but that as Wellbeing Officer colleagues approached her with complaints [394]. She accepted that there had been warnings from HR and one of the union representatives that 6 CWS23 such a group grievance may be seen as upwards bullying. She gave evidence that there was a degree of mistrust with HR which informed their approach on escalation [389]. The Tribunal found that it likely that there was an informal ‘group’ of individuals that were concerned to raise concerns with and about management.[51]Either way, it appears that any Claimant’s concerns that she held at this time appear not to have been raised again by her to Dawn Story until 13 October 2021 when she attended the School Forum, which we turn to later in these Written Reasons. PID2 – Disclosure to Paul Jones (and from March 2023, Rhian Kinsella)[52]The Claimant relies on a series of disclosures to her line managers of concerns about the health and safety of staff and students spanning over a two year period commencing with a disclosure in an email to Paul Jones on 26 July 2021, what was said in meetings and emails in late 2022 and again in March/May18 2023 to Rhian Kinsella.[53]On 26 July 2021, following her performance review, the Claimant had emailed Paul Jones thanking him for listening to her concerns regarding her health and wellbeing. What those concerns were is far from clear as the Claimant only relies on this later email as a disclosure or part of a disclosure raising concerns about the health and safety of staff and students [375]. In particular the following: “The wellbeing of staff in general must be addressed as a matter of priority and the workplace environment needs to significantly change to impart a positive impact on the staff and the students within the school. You will be fully aware that the team has experienced a high turnover of staff in the past few years. Some of which I know for sure has been related to wellbeing concerns and job dissatisfaction”.[54]The email contained no disclosure of specific information nor does it convey any facts. Rather, it was a statement of her opinion that ‘well-being’ of staff needed to be addressed as a matter of priority and that a general statement that a high turnover of staff related to well-being concerns and job dissatisfaction in the context of her raising concerns regarding her own workload and health.[55]He responded by 2 August 2021 [374], noting that the Claimant had indicated that she was suffering with stress and anxiety and confirming measures that included:a. Reducing the Claimant’s course leadership to one by transferring the BSc/MSci Forensic Science with Criminology course to another colleague;b. Revisiting the use of technicians7;c. Arranging to meet when he returned from annual leave; andd. Drawing her attention to the Staff Support Scheme and counselling service.[56]The Claimant raises no more disclosures to Paul Jones at this time, and indeed does not rely on any other disclosures to Paul Jones until the end of the following year in October 2022.[57]It appears that the Claimant remained unhappy albeit she had accepted the transfer of her duties in a prior meeting [373]. Although Paul Jones offered to meet with him and Dawn Story, the Claimant felt unable to do so. She asked for a representative to be present at a meeting arranged for September, something that was not considered acceptable as the meeting was not formal [369/370].[58]It appears that over the September of 2021, the Claimant spoke to a number of colleagues their unhappiness at work gathering evidence of collective unhappiness that resulted in the Claimant arranging for staff to meet with Ceri Dixon, HR Business Partner and Deputy Head of HR with a trade union representative on 27 September 2021. PID3 and 5 – Disclosure to Ceri Dixon/ PiD 5 Disclosure to Dr Paul Davies[59]The Claimant relies on disclosures she claims she made to Ceri Dixon, HR Business Partner on 27 September 2021, and on 7 October 2021 and 2 December 2021, to both Ceri Dixon and Paul Davies, Dean of Faculty raising health and safety concerns (ET1§89c and §89e [69][74])[60]On 27 September 2021, the Claimant attended that meeting together with a colleague (who has not given evidence) and although the meeting was to discuss ‘workplace culture, health and well-being workload etc.’ as set out in the Claimant’s witness statement, again it is unclear what that meant and what information was actually disclosed or what facts were conveyed in that meeting, neither the Claimant’s written statement evidence nor the documents referred to by the Claimant [389-390] being of much assistance.[61]The Claimant relies on an email that post-dated the meeting [390] that she sent to the same group of colleagues, that referenced the following: “I couldn’t stress the issue and extent of staff wellbeing any more than I did and I emphatically stated the toxic culture and the serious concerns I and other staff have for their colleagues within the School.” 7 An issue that appears to be prevalent throughout the Claimant’s time as a Senior Lecturer and at the latest from this time.[62]Again, that email was less than helpful in making any positive findings as to what information had been disclosed at that meeting by the Claimant, if any, other than generalised allegations of ‘toxic culture’ had been made, whatever that means, and that the Claimant held ‘serious concerns’.[63]Indeed, even taking a liberal interpretation of the Claimant’s email to her colleagues which post-dated the meeting, we could not make any positive findings as to what was said at the meeting. It appeared that ‘toxic culture’ and ‘well-being’ were themes although the specifics of what that actually meant were not clear. The only finding we could make was that the Claimant was advised to evidence as much as they could to support any grievance, setting out what they had experienced and identifying individuals and that the Claimant was concerned about such an approach.[64]On 7 October 2021, Ceri Dixon informed the Claimant that Paul Davies, Dean of Faculty, was also keen to schedule a meeting. It is not in dispute that they met. The Claimant relies on what was said at that meeting and asserts in her ET1 [70] that she addressed concerns regarding ‘workplace culture, health, safety and wellbeing of staff, the negative impact on the staff and student experience, abuse of power and workload’. The Claimant also asserts that she stated ‘it would come as no surprise if a member of staff was to do something extreme under the pressures within the School’ and that ‘Employers has a duty of care and a legal obligation to look after the health and well-being of their staff,’[65]The Claimant gives no witness statement evidence on what was said at this meeting and relies on the follow-up email of 9 October 2021 sent to her colleagues including Mark Boulter, Rehana Karim and Gareth Owen. This did not assist in determining what concerns had been raised. Again, we could make no positive findings that there had been any disclosure of information or any facts conveyed even taking the Claimant’s claim at its highest and she had said the words set out in her subsequent email.[66]The Claimant confirmed that she would be attending the School Forum on the following Wednesday and Dawn Story had been informed that ‘wellbeing concerns’ for staff was a topic for discussion. PID7 – Disclosure to Dawn Storey[67]On 13 October 2021, the Claimant attended that School Forum and what she says she disclosed at that meeting forms the final part of what the Claimant considered was her disclosure to Dawn Story.[68]The Claimant asserts that her disclosure was that she had asked Dawn Story for an update on the staff wellbeing and ‘further highlighted the inappropriate workplace and the detrimental impact it was having on the health and well-being of its staff’ and that she ‘made reference to the serious consequences that the workplace could have on a person’s life’.[69]She asserted that she gave examples of inappropriate behaviour that were contributing and that previous Well Being representatives had told Dawn Story that ‘The school was experiencing a Mental Health crisis’. Whilst the statements are serious and significant, they are general and contain no information. The Claimant’s statement evidence did not clarify any particular factual detail and again little to no evidence is contained in any of the witness statements as to what was said in that School Forum save that it is an agreed fact that at the School Forum the Claimant raised ‘concerns’ and was told that this was not an appropriate forum to do so. The only documents within the Bundle that could further assist were emails post-dating that meeting that reference that ‘concerns’ had been raised [402/401]. It appears that there had been ‘references to alleged bullying, harassment and nepotism’ raised in the meeting, as reflected in the email sent by Dawn Story of 15 October 2021 [401].[70]Again, who raised concerns, what the specifics of the complaints were and what had been said at the meeting, is not in evidence and we make no findings as to what was raised beyond the general allegations set out above [402].[71]Dawn Story asked the Claimant to engage with the appropriate policy rather than raise matters in a public forum and highlighted to the Claimant appropriate channels for her to raise concerns, including Dignity at Work, that it was important that she raise them and provide evidence so that they could be investigated [401]. The Claimant responded thanking her [401].[72]On 25 October 2021, Paul Davies, the Faculty Dean wrote to the Claimant and colleagues8 indicating that he was wanted to arrange a meeting with them and asking for the allegations in writing in line with the Dignity at Work Policy [406]. On 5 November 2021, he wrote again and confirmed that as he had no further information, no investigation can or would be undertaken [421]. PID 3 – Disclosure to Ceri Dixon and PID 5 – Disclosure to Dr Paul Davies and Ceri Dixon[73]An on-campus meeting took place on 2 December 2021 with Paul Davies and Ceri Dixon and the Claimant relies on what was said at that meeting as forming part of her disclosure. The Claimant does not deal with this in her witness statement and what was actually said in that meeting is not in evidence before us, the Claimant relying solely on a follow up email that was sent subsequently. 8 including Mark Boulter and Rehana Karim She seeks to rely on an email she had subsequently drafted to her colleagues of 5 December 2021 [432] and email of 20 December 2021 she sent to Paul Davies [437] (ET1§89c [71]) which included the following:• “"There are staff across the School, experiencing or have previously experienced issues relating to negative workplace culture, which has impacted adversely on their lives, both inside and outside of work".• "Some academic members of staff have had no option but to take longterm sick leave as a consequence of workplace issues. Their concerns have been repeatedly reported to their ASMs and other managers within the School, over several years and they have been continually ignored".• "Many staff have raised their concerns through the appropriate channels, including ASM's, Deputy Head of School, Head of School, the previous Dean of Faculty an HR. Staff continue to be ignored, shouted down, and on occasions their concerns have been trivialised and they've been told to 'put up with the behaviour'".• "It is unfair to expect individual staff to expose themselves to further mistreatment in such an oppressive working environment. Some staff have openly admitted to their colleagues that they have experienced fear, dread and retribution, which has subsequently prevented them from speaking out".• "We've followed USW policy by addressing these serious concerns to all levels of management regarding the negative workplace culture and the subsequent poor wellbeing of its staff. In the past, staff have approached their ASMs, Deputy Head of School, Head of School, Dean of Faculty, HR advisors and the union. Some staff at breaking point and serious consequences could result".• "The duty of care of an employer towards its employees was highlighted during the meeting and confirmed also by our union representative. The employer is obliged to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees, and individuals can be held accountable for mistreatment. Staff within School have been raising concerns that the physical and psychological effects of the workplace and its toxic culture is impacting on their lives and the students' experience. Staff have identified risks and reported them to the appropriate levels of management, presented them with the Employee Engagement Survey (2019) and the follow-up workshops with external HR company 'Insight' (2020), as well as addressing them with our School's HR advisor and the union. Staff are continually being directed to wellbeing schemes and company policies to support their wellbeing; however, staff are reluctant to engage with these because they are not providing the required, relevant support. The company needs to address the root causes rather than treat the individual symptoms".• Elke and Jackie's resignations are only a small number of examples of a much bigger pattern of staff turnover, which itself provides compelling evidence of the negative workplace culture and the serious consequences it is having on the staff, students and ultimately the business"”.[74]Neither assisted us in determining what information had been conveyed in that meeting beyond general:a. concerns had been raised regarding a ‘negative culture’ within the School which it was alleged had impacted adversely on lives and that some staff had to take long-term sick leave;b. There had been multiple concerns that had been ignored and trivialised and that it was unfair;c. That staff had identified risk and reported it to management;d. There was a pattern of staff turnover.[75]At that meeting, the Claimant and her colleagues were asked for evidence to move forward concerns. The follow-up email that was subsequently sent reflected that the Claimant considered and had indicated that it was difficult to directly evidence many of the management behaviours [432].[76]We were not persuaded that this was compelling evidence that the Claimant had in fact provided specific information at the meeting. We deliberated over whether, taken at face value what had been written was of sufficient specificity to amount to a disclosure of information, but found that what had been communicated was more in the form of again, a general allegation. We could make no findings on contextually how it was said without further evidence. PiD 6 – Disclosure to Martin Stegell[77]Nothing seems to have progressed since that meeting until the Spring of 2022 when the Claimant and the wider group took their concerns to Faculty. A meeting was arranged with the Pro Vice Chancellor Martin Stegell on 12 April 2022. The Claimant relies on what was said at that meeting as forming her disclosure to Martin Stegell. The Claimant claims she and her colleagues (ET1§89f [75]): “b) …………disclosed information regarding the toxic culture, mismanagement and workload and the negative impact these issues were having on the staff and students’ experience, including their health and wellbeing. Prior to this meeting, the Claimant had prepared a presentation that her and her colleagues sought to discuss the with Professor Martin Steggall (MS). The presentation was presented to MS, and it was forwarded to him after the meeting. One slide in the presentation "Health & Wellbeing", includes points on the mental and physical health issues of some staff and the impact this is having on their lifestyle, family life and social life. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of breaks within the working day and the impact the heavy workload and workplace demands were having on staff. The Claimant described the unhealthy working conditions, which was negatively impacting staff health, wellbeing and morale. She described her workplace as "unbearable" and "not fit for purpose". The Claimant raised at the meeting and in her presentation, the "duty of care that an employer has to its employees" and "the workplace is not a safe or comfortable environment for the staff or its students" and stated, "It would come as no surprise if a member of staff was to do something extreme under the workplace pressures".[78]Within her witness statement evidence the Claimant says they presented their concerns to him for the welfare of staff and students within the School of Applied Sciences. Her statement is generic and relies on the presentation that was given. The meeting was also attended by Gareth Owen and Rehana Karim [455]. The presentation indicates that the following was raised [456-464]:a. Working conditions [456] presented as unsustainable where staff were told not to voice concerns at meeting, that there was a lack of support and no time to keep abreast of developments;b. Workload was unstainable and unachievable, that it was manipulated to ‘conceal or exaggerate’, that there was disparity between staff and not aligned with other HE institutes;c. That staff retention was poor;d. There was a lack of autonomy;e. Management behaviour was criticised;f. ‘Culture’ was raised;g. Student experience was discussed; as wash. Previous Complaints that had been raised to management[79]She followed up that meeting with an email to Martin Steggall on 5 May 2022 referencing the 2019 Employee Engagement Survey in which she stated that: “As we highlighted to you, these issues have been ongoing for many years and impacting the performance of the School. Problems of poor culture were clearly evidenced in the 2019 Staff Survey which we feel were never appropriately addressed and buried. In fact, mistreatment of staff, and even students, has escalated significantly since then. The latter is gravely concerning for the reputation of our university. A private company called Insight was called in. We are aware that broad ranging issues were raised. Many of these were quite specific about the management in the School. Again, the report was not addressed by the Faculty and may not have been seen by the Executive. We would be grateful if you were able to investigate these two important documents and HR records.”[80]The Claimant was thanked for her presentation and reassured that changes were due.[81]Taking the Claimant’s pleaded case at face value, we accepted that reference to ‘lack of breaks’ was a fact that had been conveyed, the remaining comments again being allegations, accepting that workload being manipulated to conceal or exaggerate did contain some degree of specificity . Restructuring[82]Over the summer of 2022, there was a restructuring of the Faculty and concern from staff the Claimant included regarding that restructuring. The Claimant was critical and cynical of management and did not consider that her workload would change. She was concerned that they would be tightening up on Health & Safety and requesting improvements to student experience which would increase their workload [485]. She provided her response in consultation [491]. She again referenced the Employee Engagement Survey from 2019 and Insight Report.[83]Nothing appears to turn on restructuring save that there was no change to the technical team and the Claimant remained emotional and feeling unsupported [521]. By July 2022, the group was still in the process of compiling evidence towards a formal collective grievance albeit one had not come to fruition or been provided to management [513]. PiD 4- Disclosure to Professor Donna Whitehead[84]Just before the start of the 2022/2023 academic term and as part of a group of selected staff, the Claimant was invited to give feedback on the National Student Survey (“NSS”) Action Plan following another low satisfaction score from the NSS from students for the Forensic Science course of around 11% satisfaction rate.[85]The Claimant relies on disclosures made to Professor Donna Whitehead at a meeting, held to give their opinion on the NSS on 1 September 20229. The Claimant asserts that the following disclosure was made Professor Donna Whitehead (ET189d) [73]): “b. ……………….that the toxic culture and poor management was negatively impacting the students’ experience and was in her (Claimant’s) opinion, the significant factor for the poor NSS score and its negative comments. DW requested that the topic of conversation for this meeting would continue to discuss the culture issues, and she made reference to having heard similar comments being raised in other departments across the University. The Claimant continued to address what she deemed to be the issues that were negatively impacting the students’ satisfaction for the forensic science subject area. The Claimant provided more detailed information regarding the toxic culture, mismanagement and workload issues and explained how the health and wellbeing of the staff was suffering as a consequence of these concerns, and the impact this was having across the team and the science subject areas, and the inevitable impact this was having on the students’ experience. The Claimant made reference to high staff resignations and sickness levels within the Forensic Science team.”[86]Whilst ‘toxic culture’ and ‘poor management impacting on students’ experience’ again are used and relied on, and that the Claimant had opined that this impacted on the NSS score, no evidence was provided on what information the Claimant provided on what ‘she deemed to be the issues that were negatively impacting the students’ satisfaction’. Further, whilst the Claimant had claimed that she had provided more detailed information regarding the ‘toxic culture, mismanagement and workload issues’, this was not in evidence before us.[87]We were taken to an email that the Claimant subsequently send to her TU representative a few weeks later on 12 September 2022 [529] in which again she 9 Whilst she relies and again later on a disclosure on 2 April 2023, this does not appear in the evidence or the Scott Schedule provided by Claimant’s counsel. referred to ‘toxic culture’ but, again, beyond reference to a ‘toxic culture’ and a general allegation that some staff were rude and unsupportive, it was not possible to make positive findings what information the Claimant had disclosed with any degree of specificity.[88]It appears that Donna Whitehead contacted Paul Davies, Dean of Faculty, after the meeting and as a result he requested that staff did not take concerns to management outside of Faculty. The Claimant was unhappy about how she was spoken to by him and emailed him expressing disappointment at his time [536]. She also emailed Donna Whitehead to confirm that this was what had been communicated and apologised if she had been thought of as speaking out of turn [540][89]Donna Whitehead responded confirming that she and Paul Davies had met to discuss actions to improve the culture in the team and proposed a follow up in the December and that Paul Davies was meeting to speak on how to improve some of the issues. The Claimant continued to engage with email correspondence with Paul Davies over the September. Pid 2 – Disclosure to Paul Jones and Rhian Kinsella[90]On 12 October 2022, Paul Jones, the Claimant’s line manager emailed staff in the Forensic Science team regarding his concerns on health and safety and the need for risk assessment documentation [552]. The Claimant replied on 18 October 2022 [552] and relies on some of the content of the email as a protected disclosure to him (ET1 §89b [66]), as follows: “b. ……………..“The team and I fully understand and appreciate the importance of health and safety, especially considering the nature of the work being conducted in our laboratories. From what the team and I have discussed since your email, we have simply found ourselves with no time to complete these important documents, let alone provide practical lab scripts to the technical team, two weeks in advance of the practical activity commencing. The team and I have had no option other than to prioritise teaching activities, timetabling issues and responding to large volumes of email correspondence. Considering the concerns you have duly highlighted regarding the health and safety of all users of our laboratories, I would like to request the presence of a technician in a AW124 throughout the duration of each scheduled laboratory practical including the research projects (FP3S107). With the size of the classes and the busy nature of the activities being conducted during each session, the academic staff and the students would certainly appreciate an extra pair of hands and eyes from both a logistical and a safety perspective”. “It is simply not possible to maintain such heavy workloads and responsibilities in the current working conditions”. “With a follow-up meeting relating to student experience scheduled in December, I would like to raise this matter with the intention of resolving the issues that were raised in the previous NSS-Action Plan meeting in September. I have been tirelessly working to resolve matters relating to the students’ experience, staff workload, workplace culture, as well as engaging with what USW requests in its Core Values and 2030 strategy”.[91]The only facts conveyed is that the Claimant did not have time to complete the COSSH documents, despite all labs needing to have accompanying COSSH documents, [474] or practical lab scripts to the technical team and that she had prioritised teaching activities, timetabling and responding to email. She opined that it was not possible to maintain heavy workloads. October 2022 complaint: Technicians[92]A few days later and on 20 October 2022, the Claimant met with Paul Jones and complained about the behaviour of a particular technician in the team and Gareth Williams, Principal Technical Officer, Heading Technical Team, who she considered was being very difficult and vindictive particularly towards Mark Boulter, her colleague.[93]The Claimant gave evidence regarding such tensions regarding that particular technician [886][1229], denying in live evidence, any personal conflict or misconduct asserting instead that any limitations on working with particular technicians arose from concerns about student experience and operational difficulties in laboratory teaching.[94]The Claimant emailed Paul Jones on 25 October 2022 and indicated that she was going to take sick leave [563] She relies on the content of that email as forming part of or a protected disclosure in particular she claims she disclosed the following(ET1§89b [67]): “b. ………….. "I appreciate that there are wellbeing services and links to support groups, but these will not help with regards to tackling the source of the problems and to achieve a professional and functioning workplace where staff and students can work and learn in an appropriate environment, where they can feel safe, supported and appreciated for the hard work they contribute".[95]We did not find that this disclosed any information or conveyed any facts with any specificity.[96]Within that email, the Claimant confirmed that she couldn’t see an improvement in the workplace culture and there was little to no support. She confirmed that she would like to pursue a formal grievance.[97]The Claimant contacted Antonia Faithfull and asked for advice on the appropriate steps to take a formal grievance due to the ‘unbearable and untenable workplace environment [567]. She spoke of ‘unprofessional behaviours and ‘toxic work environment’. She did not articulate what that actually meant. She referred to the 2019 EES and the 2020 Insight Report. She indicated that she and others were seeing that there was no option other than to seek work elsewhere.[98]Antonia Faithfull evidenced that at that time the Claimant informed her that she considered Paul Jones to be ineffective in his role as her line manager. The Claimant also made clear in live evidence that she did not experience bullying from him, that she did not consider ‘bullying’ an issue within Forensic Science at all but rather it was his absence that was causing difficulties.[99]At the same time, Paul Jones was also contacting Antonia Faithfull expressing concerns regarding the Claimant’s conduct before she had gone on sick leave. He asserted that he felt physically threatened by the Claimant at their meeting. He asked that no action be taken.[100]The Tribunal makes it clear that they make no positive findings that the Claimant did behave in an inappropriate way, only that this had been alleged by her line manager at that time. No action was taken by the Respondent in relation to the alleged conduct of the Claimant.[101]In response, the Claimant was informed that the Dignity at Work process appeared the most appropriate [568]. The Claimant did not submit a grievance or a complaint under the Dignity at Work.[102]Whilst the Claimant’s sick leave eventually continued to March 2023 [562/563] on 10 November 2022, the Claimant emailed Paul Jones again [542]. In that email the Claimant disclosed the following which she indicates is a protected disclosure: “b. ………….. “Thank you for your offer of support but the issues I have raised have been brought to your attention countless times over the past four years. In more recent years I've attempted to address these matters with both the past Deputy Head of School and the past Head of School, however, staff concerns regarding toxic culture and its detrimental effect on health, wellbeing and the students’ experience continues to be ignored”.[103]Save for a disclosure that she had raised ‘issues’ in the past and had attempted to address concerns over ‘toxic culture’ and its impact, no information is disclosed. She again confirmed that she wanted to make a formal grievance and that if he wished to meet he should contact her.[104]In response, grievance documents and information was sent to her and that Hayley Burns would be the Claimant’s point of contact. At that point Hayley Burns had been appointed Interim Deputy Dean for the Faculty. PiD8 – Disclosure to Hayley Burns[105]Whilst the Claimant did not submit a grievance as advised on 18 November 2022 the Claimant emailed a letter to Hayley Burns [584]. The Claimant relies on the content of that letter as a protected disclosure together with what she said to Hayley Burns in subsequent meetings of 1 December 2022, 11, 12 and 31 January 2023, 12 February 2023 and 28 March 2023.[106]In that letter the Claimant again referred to ‘toxic culture’ within Chemistry and Forensic Science and that ‘the behaviour of some staff was not only unprofessional, but could be described as vindictive, disruptive and malicious’. She confirmed she was on sickness absence caused solely by ‘unco-operative and vindictive behaviours of some staff (technical staff) and the lack of support provided by my line manager’. The Claimant again referred back to the Employee Engagement Survey from 2019 and Insight Report from 2020 as evidence of the ‘toxic culture’. Whilst the Claimant confirmed that her line manager was quick to offer support, he was often absent and this had been ongoing for four years and that she was seeking alternative employment.[107]In that context, the Claimant relies on the following passages within that letter as forming a disclosure (ET1§89(i)b)[80]: “Management is fully aware of these issue but continue to ignore the warning signs which continue to have a detrimental effect on staff, students and the business. It is also worth mentioning the harmful effects to a person’s health, family life and career.” “I would describe the current situation at work as unbearable extremely toxic, unsupportive and harmful to those staff impacted by a small number of unprofessional and disruptive staff members”. “One of my colleagues is currently experiencing difficulties relating to the vindictive nature of some staff and the lack of support from management. This colleague is currently under an extreme amount of stress and is feeling vulnerable in the workplace and as alluded to quitting their job with immediate effect”.[108]The Claimant told Hayley Burns that this was not a formal grievance but that she was working on one and that she did not want to work under Paul Jones any longer. Antonia Faithfull considered that the letter was vague and only alluded to concerns. It was felt that whilst the Claimant consistently referred to ‘toxic culture’ it was difficult to ascertain any specific issues that were capable of being investigated and dealt with.[109]The Claimant was offered an occupational health referral on both 20 November 2022 and again on 1 December 2022. The Claimant refused. During the Claimant’s sickness absence she continued to correspond with colleagues including Mark Boulter regarding issues within Forensic Science.[110]On, 1 December 2022 the Claimant meet with Hayley Burns, Deputy Dean and it appears a ‘range of issues’ were discussed as reflected a note prepared by Haley Burns of the meeting including the Claimant’s concerns regarding her line manager Paul Jones, that she didn’t want to work with him anymore, and Gareth Williams, Principal Technical Officer indicating factions within the technicians and issues with particular technicians [604]. She also spoke of her own health conditions which she explained were perimenopause, hypothyroidism and stress.[111]The specific disclosures again are less than clear, there are no notes of that meeting but the Claimant asserts that she ‘expressed concerns regarding the health, safety and wellbeing of staff and the impact it was having on student experience. The Claimant also asserts that she told Hayley Burns that she had expressed her concern in the past and that ‘it would come as no surprise if a member of staff was do something as a consequence of workplace conditions.’[112]We found that these were generic statements containing no disclosure of information or facts with any sufficient degree of specificity.[113]On 11 January 2023, the Claimant emailed Hayley Burns with her Stress Management Action Plan [631, 633-642]. The Claimant relies on a section of that action plan as forming part of her disclosure as follows “b) ………………. “A couple of years ago, two staff members acted in their capacity as the School's Wellbeing Representatives, declared to Dawn Story that the school was experiencing a ‘mental health crisis’. Considering the Staff Engagement Survey and the follow-up Insight Report, along with countless concerns raised by staff regarding workload and culture, I don't feel we've progressed enough to prevent what could be a threat to life or at least severe health concerns”.[114]Whilst this appears to be a general concern about ‘mental health crisis’, and that the Claimant had an opinion or feeling that matters had not progressed, no facts or information are disclosed.[115]The Claimant also asserts that she made further disclosures to Hayley Burns in a meeting 09:00, via Microsoft TEAMS on 12 January 2023 as follows [87]. “b) …………….. The Claimant raised concerns about the state of the workplace and the detrimental impact on the health, safety and wellbeing of the staff. This meeting involved discussions around the Claimant’s Stress Management Action Plan.”[116]Again, no specificity on the information disclosed or facts conveyed beyond that has been evidenced by the Claimant and again we found that the Claimant has not proven she disclosed any information or conveyed any facts.[117]On 31 January 2023, the Claimant refused a referral to OH. She relies on a disclosure to Hayley Burns on that date which she asserts were ‘similar discussions as previous meetings’. Whilst that may be so, no specificity on what was said has been provided and the Claimant has not proven that she disclosed any information or conveyed facts.[118]On 13 February 2023, the Claimant emailed Hayley Burns [668]. In that email the Claimant wrote the following which she relies on as a protected disclosure: “b) ……………… “Whilst I'm very keen to return to work as soon as possible, the current state of the workplace is not a healthy and safe environment for me to return and perform my role to the best of my ability. No member of staff should have to endure infighting between colleagues and malicious practice. I am abundantly aware of the current hostility and dissatisfaction among staff and the impact this is having on the health and wellbeing of some colleagues and the detrimental effect on the business and the students’ experience”. “From our discussions, I understand that several academic staff members have raised similar concerns relating to unprofessional behaviour, toxic workplace, work-related health concerns (as a result of behaviours and workload), poor student experience, lack of guidance and support, lack of autonomy, etc”.[119]Again we found that these were generalised allegations with a lack of clarity on what the Claimant was referring to.[120]In response, Hayley Burns confirmed that the Claimant would not be permitted a new line manager until the Claimant had submitted a grievance along with evidence for an investigation. The Claimant responded supporting that decision and explaining her delay in submitting a grievance. A further offer of occupational health was refused by her.[121]On 23 March 2023, Hayley Burns emailed the Claimant confirming that Paul Jones had stepped down from his role as Head of Subject for Biological and Forensic Sciences and suggested meeting.[122]During this time the Claimant appeared to again be raising concerns regarding the Academic Subject Manager for Chemistry again and that she did not consider that they were a good choice for course leader for BSc Forensic Investigation course. The Claimant’s conduct at a particular meeting was a concern, but no action was taken at that time.[123]In March 2023, the Claimant returned to work and on 28 March 2023 met with Hayley Burns. The Claimant claims that at that meeting she made a further disclosure on the basis that she ‘expressed her concerns regarding the current hostility in the team and the impact that this was having on some colleagues and their mental and physical health’ (ET1§89v [82])[124]We repeat, we could make no positive findings that the Claimant had disclosed any information or conveyed any facts in that meeting. Pid2 – Disclosure to Rhian Kinsella- ‘Stilts Café conversation’[125]The Claimant also met Rhian Kinsella on 28 March 2023 at the Stilts café (the “Stilts Café conversation”), who informed the Claimant that she was applying for the Head of Subject for Biological and Forensic Science position after Paul Jones had stepped down from the role.[126]The Claimant relies on this as forming part of her PiD2 disclosure. In her ET1 §86b [68], the Claimant asserts as follows: “b. The Claimant disclosed the current state of the science subject area, and the recent issues experienced within the Forensic Science (FS) team. The Claimant made these statements after Rhian had informed her that she was interested in applying for the vacant Head of Subjects role for Biological and Forensic Sciences after Dr Paul Jones’s resignation earlier in March 2023. The Claimant explained the toxic workplace culture and the issues that some FS academics were experiencing with some of the technical staff. The Claimant explained to Rhian, that she had reported several issues, including, health, safety and wellbeing concerns to all levels of management and has quoted in the past to management, that “it would come as no surprise if someone was to do something extreme as a consequence of the workplace pressures”.[127]Again, the Claimant’s witness statement does not assist and we make no positive findings as to what, if anything was disclosed, or what facts, if any, the Claimant conveyed other than the Claimant likely disclosed to Rhian Kinsella that she had fallen out with members of the Technical Team. We did not find that discussing the ‘state’ of the subject area was a fact. What the Claimant discussed regarding ‘recent issues’ referred to is not in evidence albeit it appears accepted that the Claimant raised issues around ‘culture’ and inaction of management. We would repeat ‘toxic workplace culture’ is not conveying any facts or disclosing information. Likewise, expressing a concern that someone could do something ‘extreme as a consequence or workplace pressures’ whilst a significant and serious allegation to make, it is not conveying any facts or disclosing any information.[128]In that conversation, which subsequently was referred to as the Stiltz café conversation within Helen Higgins later grievance, we found it likely that Rhian Kinsella did convey to the Claimant that she did not like Helen Higgins. Forensics Team meeting 29 March 2023[129]Two meetings took place attended by the Claimant:a. On 29 March 2023, the Claimant attended a forensics meeting; andb. On 30 March 2023, a Teams meeting held to discuss the NSS chaired by Donna Whitehead, Deputy Dean of Faculty.[130]At the Forensics meeting on 29 March 2023, the Claimant openly criticised the Technical Team [98] although there is a dispute between the parties as to the Claimant’s behaviour at that meeting. The Claimant denies that she had shouted or that she had pointed to the Chemistry Academic Manager and said that the School should not have non-forensics staff teaching on forensics and that this had meant her. NSS Meeting on 30 March 2023 and subsequent meeting with Deputy Dean[131]On the following day, at the NSS meeting, the Claimant was again considered to have behaved unprofessionally by raising her voice, interrupting colleagues using unprofessional tone and language, making unsubstantiated claims about colleagues.[132]Hayley Burns was sufficiently concerned about what she considered was the Claimant’s ‘erratic behaviour’ at the NSS meeting that she emailed the Claimant on 4 April 2023, reflecting that she considered that the Claimant had interrupted colleagues and that the Claimant’s tone and language could be viewed as unprofessional and that she considered that the Claimant had made unsubstantiated comments about a colleague. She expressed concern that the Claimant continued to make reference to lack of action from senior colleagues around her perceptions of culture and allegations of bullying. The Claimant was reminded that she had been told that she needed to formally evidence this, noting that the Claimant had made serious allegations of colleagues with mental health but had provided no specific information to allow support [701].[133]She was advised that the manner in which the Claimant was talking about historical issues was having a detrimental effect on colleagues and that whilst the Claimant had raised concerns on ‘culture’ it was the Claimant’s behaviour that currently did not align with the core values at the University.[134]On the same day, an OH referral was made for the Claimant but beyond this email, no formal action was taken against the Claimant. April 2023 OH Report[135]The Claimant was upset by Hayley Burns email and contacted the Donna Whitehead on 5 April 2023 apologising for her behaviour at the meeting on 30 March 2023 [703]. She emailed her again on 14 April 2024 explaining that her email of 5 April 2023 had been sent in haste and having reflected, stood by the points she had raised at the meeting.[136]On 24 April 2023, the Claimant was assessed by OH with a report being produced [221]. That report indicated that:a. the Claimant had informed them she had visited her GP after feeling constantly tired and fatigued;b. blood tests revealed a low thyroid function;c. that medication had started that had been ineffective and that the Claimant was waiting to see an endocrinologist; andd. The Claimant also reported raised blood pressure.[137]No reference to the Claimant’s perimenopause symptoms is included in the report.[138]It was noted by OH that the Claimant expressed that she did not wish to see a counsellor and that she wanted to self-manage her phased return to work. The OH Adviser did not consider any short term adjustments would be required as the Claimant reported that her workload was heavy and that she had her research work to complete. It was their opinion that this was a management issue and that the Claimant felt that changes were in place and did not wish any other adjustments at that time and would ‘like to see how things settle’.[139]On the same day, Hayley Burns emailed the Claimant reminding her that she had previously asked her to submit her grievance by 17 April 2023 in order for her concerns to be investigated [727].[140]None was submitted. Appointment of Rhian Kinsella[141]On 26 April 2023, Rhian Kinsella was appointed as interim Head of Service (becoming substantive Head of Service on 12 June 2023).[142]By early May 2023, the Claimant had met with her to explain that she had ongoing issues with the Technical Team, that this had been the reason for her sickness absence from work and that she couldn’t work with them. At that meeting Rhian Kinsella highlighted the importance of good relationships and organised joint Team meetings between the academics and technicians to assist in communication.[143]She also spent time assessing how the Forensics Team was functioning and considered that there was a lack of parity between staff workloads and that timetabling was not in line with the Academic Workload Model/AWM. She considered that certain team members’ working hours, including the Claimant and Mark Boulter, were well below the hours per year which was considered to be an acceptable number [2292]. Unchallenged evidence was that the Claimant was some 240+ hours below total hours and Mark Boulter some 600 total hours below [2292].[144]She was also aware from Hayley Burns that a group of students had been complaining about how their courses were being run with last minute cancellations of lectures and lack of preparation by staff. This was of concern to her as the Respondent offered places to students with lower socio-economic backgrounds where they often had work and caring responsibilities outside of their studies. The Claimant was specifically named as a cause of these problems. She met those students to understand their concerns.[145]Both the students’ complaint and her own view of the workings of the team led her to conclude that members of the team were not meeting the parameters of their workloads or working hours in accordance with their employment contracts or AWM. She concluded that with re-organising, things could be more efficient and held team meetings to explain that the team would run more smoothly with more evenly spread workload. She asked for feedback. PID 2 – Disclosure to Rhian Kinsella[146]The Claimant asserts that a further disclosure was made on 17 May 2023 to Rhian Kinsella by email in which the Claimant asserts “b. The Claimant disclosed the state of the current workplace, including concerns regarding the health and safety of staff and students, and the negative impact this had on the Claimant and her colleagues in the past. The conversation was a positive exchange, and the Claimant expressed her enthusiasm and delight that there had been positive changes made, and she was looking forward to the future. It was during this conversation that the Claimant and Rhian Kinsella discussed a range of other matters, including, the past issues the Claimant and her colleagues had experienced with some technical staff, the Claimant’s desire to retain course leadership duties in the future, her current state of health and her medical conditions, supporting Alexandra Maneta in her pursuit to secure a full-time contract, etc.”[147]A copy of the email was not included in the Bundle and the Claimant’s counsel was likewise unable to assist. Rhian Kinsella’s evidence was that she did not believe she received such an email and the Claimant gave no witness statement evidence.[148]In the absence of such a document and in light of the assertion made, we found that the Claimant as not proven that she made a positive disclosure of information and/or conveyed any facts. Introduction of Baseline Model[149]By June 2023, following discussion and agreement with both academics and technicians alike Rhian Kinsella introduced a new model for working practices within the School: The Baseline Model [98].[150]The Respondent used a virtual learning platform called ‘Blackboard’, an online space for lecturers to upload course and assessment materials for students to access and within the organisation has a team CELT, Centre of Excellence for Learning and Teaching responsible for issuing minimum standards for the Blackboard use; what has been described as a framework of the minimum information and material required on a University-wide basis. CELT required that material be uploaded to Blackboard 3 weeks in advance of delivery.[151]To improve the student experience, with an aim to ensure that in event of staff sickness, another member of staff could deliver the material reducing impact for students of any staff absence, Rhian Kinsella proposed that both written and practical material should be added to Blackboard 6 weeks in advance. She asked the team for feedback [801] and after that feedback, it was agreed that the 6 week requirement would only be applied to practical sessions.[152]It was agreed as a minimum that all written materials needed to be on Blackboard 3 weeks in advance and all practical materials for the lab sessions, 6 weeks. These requirements were referred to as ‘The Baseline Model’.[153]By this point, a copy of the Claimant’s OH report had been sent to Rhian Kinsella after her appointment on 24 May 2023 [746]. Rhian Kinsella gave evidence that she had no reason to believe that the Claimant would not be able to follow the Baseline Model and that had anyone in the team presented a reason why they would need the Baseline Model adjusted, she would have been open to making changes but at no point did the Claimant indicate as part of that feedback or at all that her conditions of hypothyroidism or perimenopause would impact on her ability to follow it. We accepted that evidence. Financial Review[154]By the summer of 2023, the Respondent was facing financial difficulties cause by a number of factors including the drop in overseas students and the resulting income that they generated. A Financial Investigator was engaged to assess were savings could be made giving analysis on staffing numbers with a view to reducing headcount as well as the cutting courses.[155]In July 2023, a ‘Town Hall’ meeting took place where the need to make savings across the University was disseminated, as could resulting staff losses. The Financial Investigator met with Rhian Kinsella having identified a potential overstaffing of 5 employees [830]. She was of the opinion that the School was not overstaffed and a reduction of the use of hourly paid staff was discussed. It was determined as a result that the headcount in Forensic Science would not be reduced by reason of the financial review. Baseline Model[156]At the start of the new academic year, at a team meeting on 13 September 2023 [788] Rhian Kinsella reminded staff of the need to comply with the AWM and Baseline model.[157]No teaching had been taking place since May 2023 at the latest and the summer break for students would have given staff the opportunity to comply. In live evidence, whilst the Claimant had explained her non-teaching responsibilities, she had also conceded that she had been teaching some of the same materials for many years and would only be updating those materials each course and that some materials were used for multiple sessions for different groups of students that had been split into smaller groups. We therefore found that it was not unreasonable for the Claimant to have undertaken work to ensure compliance with the Baseline Model over this time.[158]Rhian Kinsella followed that with an email the following day [801]. She had concluded that not all had adhered to the AWM or Baseline Model and identified that the Claimant was amongst those who were not.[159]The Clamant responded confirming that she was not going to require any technical support for either preparation or demonstration. She indicated that she would ‘try her best’ to prepare lecture material in advance but she was struggling. She expressed concern that they were ‘promising too much to students’ for something that they were not demanding.[160]Rhian Kinsella’s response provided further explanation for the need for advance materials reminding her that as part of the Respondent’s EDI Policy students should be able to access materials more than a few days in advance [800]. The Claimant responded that it ‘makes sense’ and she would try her best to get the materials on as soon as possible [800]. A[161]By October 2023, the Claimant was indicating that she was struggling to meet the Baseline Model deadlines but that she was not far off being compliant [816]. Grievances from MB and HH[162]In September 2023, to ensure that everyone was fulfilling their contractual obligations to reach the 1576 hours target and for fairness across the team, Mark Boulter was asked by Rhian Kinsella to review his AWM as he was 600 hours below his overall hours. He gave evidence that despite making suggestions as to how he could increase his hours, he felt that Rhian Kinsella was dismissive and felt her tone aggressive and confrontational. He declined an invite to meet and explained he wanted his TU representative to attend as he felt targeted as Rhian Kinsella had referenced a discussion he had held the year previously when he had indicated a desire to leave.[163]He believed that as Rhian Kinsella had stated that the department was overstaffed by 5 members, he was one of the Senior Lecturers she had ‘targeted’ based on age and salary savings that could be made. He believed that Rhian Kinsella was motivated to pressure him to leave because he was paid more than younger members of the forensic team. He submitted a grievance against her and commenced sick leave on 8 November 2023.[164]At around the same time Helen Higgins’ own grievances were being investigated.[165]At this juncture we will say that no evidence has been provided within the evidence on:a. Salaries or grading structures within the Respondent organisation;b. Mark Boulter’s salary or age, although it is likely that he is over 36 due to the commencement of his employment with the Respondent in 2008;c. Helen Higgins salary or age, although it is likely that she is over 39 due to the commencement of her employment with the Respondent in 2005. Annual Leave[166]As a result of Mark Boulter’s sickness absence, arrangements needed to be made to cover his work and, on reviewing the timetable, Rhian Kinsella noted that there was a three week ‘gap’ in in the teaching timetable something that was unusual as the timetabling should be planned at the start of the academic year.[167]She noted that the ‘gap’ was as a result of the Claimant booking three consecutive weeks of annual leave during the Autumn teaching term. Whilst there is no written holiday policy, it is generally accepted between the parties that booking such extended leave during term time is unusual and not in accordance with accepted practice due to the obvious impact on students.[168]She herself had approved one of the week’s but she noted that the Claimant had booked a further two weeks’ leave that had been authorised by someone else when she herself had been on annual leave. She spoke to the Claimant and indicated that she should not have authorised such leave. Complaint from Technician[169]On 22 November 2023, Rhian Kinsella had an email one of the technicians in the team, herself alluding to ‘toxic environment’. She referred to the Claimant complaining about the technical assistance being provided and then refusing to work with the technician causing her stress-related anxiety [866]. Rhian Kinsella discussed the complaint with the technician’s line manager, Gareth Williams and explained to the technician the formal process to follow if she wanted to put in a formal complaint. Nothing it appears came from this at that time. PID1 – Disclosure following team meeting[170]A Team meeting was also arranged on 22 November 2023 to discuss cover for teaching in Mark Boulter’s absence and, having reviewed the timetable Rhian Kinsella formed the view that some of his modules, for which the Claimant was Course Leader, had not been appropriately planned for and that one particular lecture was taking place at the time that the meeting was taking place.[171]The Claimant asked for a private meeting at the end of the meeting. The Claimant relies on a conversation that she had at the end of that Team meeting on 22 November 2023 when she alleges in her ET1 [66] that she disclosed: “…………….how chaotic the workplace was and the negative impact this was having on her health and wellbeing and the health and wellbeing of the staff and students within the forensic science subject area. The Claimant raised concerns regarding the health and safety and the duty of care burden on the Respondent. The Claimant also stated that “I am appalled with how Mark Boulter has been treated” and she described the workplace as “not fit for purpose”. She stated how she considering leaving USW as a consequence of these matters.”[172]The Claimant’s statement evidence repeated that she had explained how ‘chaotic the workplace was’ and how it was having a detrimental impact on the health and well-being of staff and students, that the employer had a duty of care and the workplace was not fit for purpose and that she was appalled with treatment of Mark Boulter and that she would be looking for other jobs.[173]In live evidence the Claimant accepted that she could not clearly recall the precise words she had said or whether she had elaborated specifically on the treatment of Mark Boulter, only that she ‘would have’. She accepted that she was uncertain as to what information she had actually given. She accepted that the statement ‘not fit for purpose’ related to her own view albeit she related this and derived it from the Employee Engagement Survey results from 2019, some four/five years previously.[174]Rhian Kinsella’s evidence was that the Claimant told her that she could not work under current conditions and would not work with the technical team and that she offered to involve HR. Rhian Kinsella felt that the Claimant was seeking to intimidate her physically but her evidence was that at no point did she raise any specific issues about the staff and students of the workplace culture. She was not cross-examined on this although it was conceded by the Respondent that Rhian Kinsella would have understood that at that time Mark Boulter was upset about having to justify his lack of contractual hours.[175]Preferring the evidence of Rhian Kinsella, we were not persuaded that the Claimant had used the words relied on but in any event considered that this related to two separate issues:a. how chaotic the workplace was and the impact that this was having on her health, other staff and students; andb. that she was appalled at how Mark Boulter was being treated.[176]Gareth Williams (Principal TO, heading technical team) had also attended the meeting and subsequently emailed Rhian Kinsella on 23 November 2023 [882] complaining that the Baseline Model was not being achieved particularly by Mark Boulter and the Claimant but that others had managed.[177]Later that week and on 28 November 2023, Rhian Kinsella emailed the team with key actions with priority being adherence to the Baseline Model [896]. We accepted Rhian Kinsella’s unchallenged evidence10 that despite these communications, the Claimant’s behaviour became increasingly problematic with:a. failure to ensure cover for lab sessions, submit assessment videos, or ensure Individual Support Plan adjustments were in place for students;b. postponement of lectures for two weeks in January, disrupting the timetable;c. failure to ensure a lecturer turned up for a session that she was responsible for as course leader.[178]Rhian Kinsella emailed the Claimant again on 18 January regarding some of these concerns reminding her that adherence to the Baseline Model would avoid such issues and offered further support and to meet [1811].[179]The Claimant responded to Rhian Kinsella that she did want to meet but wanted a trade union representative to accompany her and that she considered Rhian Kinsella’s tome to be detrimental to her health [1816]. Rhian Kinsella’s response was that she was not entitled to union representation but that she could have HR support. She suggested that a referral to occupational health at that point might be worth it.[180]On the same day, the Claimant sought advice on pursuing a grievance [998]. Leadership Duties : MSc Course[181]In that same month, a Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science resigned and a decision was made to make a temporary appointment until the end of term when a permanent appointment would be made. A decision was made by Rhian Kinsella to appoint an Alex Maneta as Course Leader for BsC science as Alex Maneta expressed an interest, had capacity as she was only working part-time and could carry out teaching in China for various periods throughout the year, a requirement of the course. She was appointed to the role and we found that these were the reasons she was appointed.[182]We accepted Rhian Kinsella’s unchallenged evidence that the Claimant did not express an interest and indeed it appears that it was not until 23 February 2024, that the Claimant asked to be considered as by that stage it appears to 10 RKWS42 (453) have been determined that the BSc Forensic Science with Criminology was coming to a close at the end of the summer [1090].[183]We have no evidence on Alex Maneta’s age or salary or certainly none that the Claimant’s representative could take us to. Protected Act: Interviews on grievances[184]At some point in December 2023, Rhian Kinsella was interviewed as part of Mark Boulter’s and Helen Higgins’ grievance investigations. In live evidence, Rhian Kinsella confirmed that she had neither seen the grievances nor was aware of their specific contents. She did not know they were age-related. She did not know whether the Claimant had been interviewed as part of the grievances, and indeed the Claimant had not at that stage.[185]Rhian Kinsella had been asked a series of questions, none of which related to age but, as some of the questions related to her conversation in the Stilz café with the Claimant the previous March, she deduced that the Claimant must have been involved in the grievance in some capacity.[186]She gave evidence, which we accepted, that she did not know how old the Claimant was or Alex Maneta.[187]She also gave unequivocal evidence that the Claimant giving evidence in the grievance processes had no bearing on anything she did, said or advised regarding the Claimant. She was not challenged on this in live evidence.[188]In January 2024, the Claimant was also interviewed as part of Mark Boulter and Hellen Higgins’ grievances. It is conceded by the Respondent that as the grievances contain allegations of age discrimination, the Claimant’s participation in those investigation meetings constituted a protected act for the purposes of a victimisation complaint under s.27 Equality Act 2010. Request for Advice[189]In January, Rhian Kinsella also came into receipt of a request from the student representatives for a meeting to discuss their third year, the same group who had complained the year previously with concerns regarding a course for which the Claimant was responsible [2071][993].[190]As a result, she repeated her concerns to the Team about compliance with the Baseline Model on 24 January 2024 [1004] and offered support to anyone needed assistance with assistance to prioritise adhering to it.[191]She also sought advice from Antonia Faithfiull, HR Business Partner regarding the Claimant’s non adherence to the Baseline model and response. On 14 February 2024 she emailed her. She had by that point concluded that more formal action was required as her informal management of the Claimant had not been effective [1066].[192]The email is not a grievance nor a complaint. Rather, it is a senior manager seeking HR advice due to concerns she held regarding the Claimant, querying that the Claimant’s conduct may be misconduct or gross misconduct and seeking advice on how to proceed. She set out a wide-ranging and lengthy set of concerns, referencing some matters dating back to 2020 that included a raft of concerns:a. that the Claimant had issues being managed by her, as she had being managed by her previous line managers;b. of alleged and historic aggressive behaviours towards staff, including Paul Jones leading to him refusing to sit in the Forensic office;c. regarding her refusal to work with technicians but no supporting grievance for any ongoing issues;d. Consistent failure to follow the Baseline Model, or interact with technicians;e. Disorganisation on modules where she was module leader with assertions that sessions were cancelled at short notice;f. Booking of 3 weeks annual leave during term time;g. That she was under hours for teaching yet running lab sessions with very low numbers;h. Condescending behaviour when discussing student complaints;i. That the Claimant had been approaching staff to see if they had any ‘dirt’ on her as she wanted to get rid her as her manager causing wider upset in the team.[193]She stated that despite offering support to follow the Baseline Model, the Claimant had responded that she was seeking to ‘take this further’ and would only meet with her with a union representative present. She opined that there was a core group across Forensic and Chemistry, the Claimant, Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins being part of such group, that were working against what the Heads were putting in place and that she felt that the Claimant was refusing to acknowledge management. She expressed concern that the staff were fragmented and unwilling to work in the office together, herself using the expression ‘toxic’.[194]She ended her email with a request on advice on physical violence/bullying, insubordination and not refusing to engage with her as a manager without union representation. Sick leave February 2024[195]On 18 February 2024, the Claimant emailed Rhian Kinsella confirming that she was not fit for work [1074] and commenced sick leave. She did not subsequently return to work at all for the remainder of her employment with the Respondent.[196]Rhian Kinsella responded suggesting that the Claimant complete a new stress risk assessment plan as the last document had been completed prior to her line management and suggesting an OH referral for the Claimant [1079]. On 20 February 2024, the Claimant was referred to OH which was organised for the beginning of April [1083] .[197]As indicated, whilst on sick leave and on 23 February 2024, the Claimant emailed Rhian Kinsella asking whether she could take over Course Leadership of one of Mia Lambert’s courses in March 2024 [1081]. Rhian Kinsella considered that unusual given that she was already a Course Leader, it was not standard practice to lead on multiple courses and she was already on sick leave. She was concerned that additional course leadership would contribute to further stress.[198]The Claimant confirmed that she would work on a new Stress Management Action Plan.[199]Despite being on sick leave, the Claimant contacted students. In turn, two Master’s students contacted Rhian Kinsella expressing concern that they still hadn’t been told what their projects were and arrangements were made for hourly paid lecturers to assist.[200]On 1 March 2024, the Claimant emailed Antonio Faithfull confirming that she had given evidence to the investigator on Mark Boulter’s and Helen Higgins’ grievances asking who was aware that she had contributed evidence. Antonia Faithfull responded that she had seen it, as had Paul Davies, Dean of the Faculty, Mark Boulter and Zoe Grainger, HR Director [1106].[201]The Claimant was convinced that Antonia Faithfull, Hayley Burns and Rhian Kinsella were building a case against her. PiD 9 - Meeting with TU representatives: 4 March 2024[202]On 4 March 2024, the Claimant met with the UCU representatives, Dr Tracie McKinney and Kark Greenhough. The Claimant relies on the following as a protected disclosure (ET1§89(j)[83]) as follows@ “The Claimant and her colleagues raised health and safety concerns and concerns regarding the processing of grievances by management. Concerns were also raised by the Claimant and her colleagues regarding the union’s capacity to deal with its members concerns and provide the adequate support. The discussions included serving a HSE inspection on the faculty, taking concerns to the ACIG and beginning a collective grievance. This can be evidence in an email sent by Dr McKinney to the Claimant and her colleagues, dated 12/03/2024 at 12:30. This formed part of the discussion during the Claimant’s dismissal hearing with her UCU Representative highlighting these concerns and requesting a HSE inspection on the department.”[203]The Claimant has only given evidence that they discussed an ‘increasingly toxic workplace environment’ fears for submitting complaints, which in live evidence the Claimant confirmed related to colleagues not management, and request for a health and safety intervention.[204]Again, the tribunal found that this did not meet the threshold of a disclosure of information or conveyance of any facts. Commencement of Dismissal Proceedings[205]On 19 March 2024, Rhian Kinsella sent a further email to Antonia Faithfull citing further third year student complaints about the Claimant relating to learning time, lack of contact, changes to assessment deadlines and provision of inconsistent or incorrect information [1110].[206]Antonia Faithfull contacted Zoe Grainger, HR Director to ask for assistance on how to respond and advise. She prepared a timeline of issues/events dating back to 1 December 2022 [607].[207]Antonia Faithfull and Zoe Grainger considered whether the issues should be managed by either the capability or disciplinary processes but concluded that as potential outcomes would not be helpful and given that it appeared to them that the relationship had reached a point where the mutual trust and confidence between the parties was in question and breaking down, the Dismissal Procedure was the most appropriate channel.[208]Antonia Faithfull gave statement evidence that it was in no way connected to the fact that the Claimant had given statement evidence in the grievances of Mark Boulter / Helen Higgins and that other witnesses in those investigations had not been subject to a Dismissal Procedure. She wasn’t challenged on that and we accepted that evidence.[209]On 21 March 2024, the Claimant emailed Rhian Kinsella indicating that she was due to return to work as soon as possible and on 25 March 2024 and that her OH appointment was not until April. She asked if there was any marking or admin required [1130] [1139].[210]Rhian Kinsella discussed with Hayley Burn whether it would be appropriate for the Claimant to return taking into account her concerns about the Claimant’s behaviour and impact on students. In response and on the same day, Hayley Burns emailed the Claimant indicating that she had been about to contact her as she was shortly to receive a letter inviting her to a meeting to discuss concerns that had been raised around her behaviour and working relationship with colleagues; that it was her understanding that these concerns could imply a loss of trust and confidence and that it needed to be considered whether the Claimant’s suspension may be appropriate in advance of that meeting.[211]On 22 March 2024, the Claimant emailed Rhian Kinsella indicating that being out of routine and isolated from her role was having a further detrimental effect on her physical and mental health [1140]. We would repeat our finding that the Claimant had been on sick leave and not suspended at this point. Dismissal Proceedings[212]A meeting to discuss the Claimant’s potential suspension was arranged for 25 March 2024 [1133]. That meeting did not take place and the Claimant was not suspended. Rather, she remained on sick leave extending her fit note and requesting that the initial meeting be postponed [1148]. It was confirmed to the Claimant that any decision on suspension would be postponed. As a result, at no time was the Claimant suspended.[213]In the meantime and on 21 March 2024, the Claimant was invited meeting to review the state of the employment relationship between the Respondent and her as a result of concerns that had come to the Respondent’s attention [1127]. The letter stated as follows: “The concerns are around the suitability for you to continue in your role as a senior lecturer, course leader and module leader given the negative behaviours and attitudes you have been demonstrating in meetings, and towards colleagues (academics and technicians) in the Forensics team which is causing disharmony and upset, and a number of concerns relating to student experience as a result of a lack of leadership in your course leader role. The concerns are detailed in the attached document which reveal a pattern of behaviour that directly affects the working environment and the well-being of staff and the student experience/outcomes. It appears you have been given many opportunities to formally air any grievances you may have, but have not done so and yet continue to bring these up as a reason for your actions, and you continue to act in a way that is disruptive and has a negative impact on colleagues and the Biological and Forensic Team. As a result consideration will be given to the state of the working relationship between you and the University and consider whether the University can continue to have trust and confidence in you as implied in the contract of employment, to undertake your role fully, professionally and in the interests of the University, our students and work colleagues.[214]The letter attached a number of documents which included the Timeline prepared as well as emails including that from Hayley Burns to the Claimant of 4 April 2023 [1107] and emails from Rhian Kinsella of 14 February 2024 [1066] and 19 March 2024 [1109]. Formal Grievance: 25 March 2024/PID 10[215]Four days later and on the 25 March 2024 the Claimant filed a formal grievance [1150, 1153]. This was the first and only formal grievance that the Claimant submitted.[216]The Claimant asserts that within the grievance she made further disclosures (ET1§94 [84]) “The Claimant disclosed in her letter, which accompanies her grievance, that “I've raised concerns in the past regarding wellbeing of staff including myself and our students. These concerns have been raised to all levels of management, but have not received a satisfactory resolution to the problem. The toxic culture, mismanagement and the abuse of power has continued to impact me personally and professionally, and I strongly believe that the toxic culture and management's reluctance or inability to resolve these matters is a violation of Health and Safety legislation". In the section of the grievance titled "High turnover of staff and high staff sickness rates", the Claimant directs the readers to Microsoft TEAMS chat, where a team colleague of the Claimant is expressing her dissatisfaction with the workplace and her desire to leave because of the workplace issues. The Claimant also draws to the reader's attention, another TEAMS chat where Rhian Kinsella is stating "Another staff sickness today". The Claimant explains the number of staff off sick in the team at that current time and the reasons for their absence. The Claimant states, "The student experience has once again suffered as a result of staff illnesses, yet staff continued to strive as hard as possible to maintain a good student experience, but it has taken its toll on me and several of my colleagues. The employer has a duty of care by law to ensure the safety of its staff at all times. I believe this is a breach of the health and safety legislation and the HSE Standards".[217]Whilst the Claimant again alluded to ‘wellbeing’, ‘toxic culture’ ‘mismanagement’ and ‘abuse of power’ and did assert high turnover of staff impacting on student experience, and management reluctance to resolve matters being a breach of health and safety, she provides no facts nor discloses any specific information to support the broad allegations.[218]The Claimant also relies on what she wrote in her letter, which accompanies her grievance, as a protected disclosure, that “The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 has recently been introduced to allow students, staff and other stakeholders the opportunity to express their opinions and beliefs without suffering detriment from the employer. I strongly believe that I am being targeted by my line manager and other employees, including more senior managers, because I have expressed my views regarding the detriment that the toxic workplace culture has had on staff, students and the business”.[219]That again is an allegation that she is being targeted because she had expressed views on toxic culture. No specific information or facts are included.[220]The grievance attached a range of documents including:a. A table of events for which the Claimant asserted she had witnessed of bullying, harassment and victimisation of colleagues dating back to 28 March 2023, with the Stilts Café Conversation with Rhian Kinsella as well as asserting that Rhian Kinsella had breached GDPR breach in disclosing to Helen Higgins’ line manager at South Wales Police that Helen Higgins was on long-term sick with the University (“Data Breach”) and in September 2023, in which she claimed that Mark Boulter had been harassed by Rhian Kinsella, had submitted a grievance for which she had provided evidence on in January 2024;b. What she considered was evidence of retaliation for providing that evidence, including being overlooked for course leadership in the BSc Forensic Science course;c. High turnover of staff and staff sickness rates, referencing Mark Bolter and Helen Higgins long term sickness as well as that of Katie Bird and Sheri Murrell;d. Indirect age discrimination, stating that it was her belief that Rhian Kinsella had targeted her, Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins.[221]On 26 March 2024, Antonia Faithfull emailed the Claimant and confirmed that her comments regarding other staff could not be accepted as grievances from her and that her grievance would be considered alongside the Dismissal Procedure, a decision that had been made by Mark Milton, Chief Operating Officer, who by that time had been appointed as decision-maker [1150]. The initial meeting was postponed to 3 April 2024. First Dismissal Meeting: 3 April 2024/PID 12[222]Prior to the initial meeting on 3 April 2024, the Claimant had emailed expressing concern on the impact on her health and lack of support due to the Easter period [1196]. The Claimant made no reference to her hyperthyroidism or her perimenopause symptoms. She made no reference to needing additional support.[223]That meeting took place and was attended by the Claimant accompanied by her trade union representative. Mark Milton was accompanied by Zoe Grainger as HR Support and a notetaker was provided.[224]Within her Second Claim the Claimant had asserted that she made further protected disclosures within her dismissal meetings commencing on the meeting on 3 April 2024 as follows (ET1§27[130]): “…….I raised health and safety concerns relating to the staff within the forensic science team and the wider science subject disciplines. Our concerns addressed the disproportionately high levels of staff sickness and resignations, poor staff and students’ experience, a workplace not fit for purpose and a genuine fear that a colleague would come to serious harm, which I stated I would blow the whistle if this was to occur. Karl Greenhough requested a Heath and Safety inspection on the department and raised concerns regarding structural mismanagement over a prolonged period of time.”[225]Notes of the meeting were provided and included within the Bundle [1200] which reflect that in summary at that meeting.[226]The Claimant was informed that the focus of that meeting was to look at concerns regarding the Claimant’s relationship with the University and whether the Respondent could continue to have trust and confidence in the Claimant; that he would be reviewing a series of events going back to November 2022, where the Claimant was raising a number of issues that had continued to date as were the concerns set out by Rhian Kinsella in her email of 14 February 2024.[227]The Claimant was asked if there was anything she wanted to make Mark Milton aware of in the context of the conduct alleged. Whilst Mark Milton was cross-examined on this, and it was suggested to him, that this reflected a predetermined outcome, we did not find that to be the case. Rather, we read it that Mark Milton had both noted that the Claimant had denied any conduct and acknowledged that the Claimant reserved the right not to accept that conduct and was simply questioning whether there was anything underlying that the Claimant wanted to tell him that needed to be made aware of. Indeed, this is a question he asked of the Claimant on each occasion he met with her.[228]It appeared to us that the Claimant wanted to speak of her grievances and at this initial meeting Mark Milton, wanted to speak of the conduct.[229]She responded that she was Wellbeing Officer, referred back to the 2019 Employee Engagement Survey from some five years earlier and that it was that led to her feeling the need to submit a grievance. Mark Milton clarified that he was not asking her about her grievance but whether there was anything underlying that he needed to be made aware of. We considered this to be nothing more than a general enquiry at this stage as to whether the Claimant wanted to provide any explanation. It was not a refusal or failure to consider the Claimant’s grievance.[230]Again, the Claimant simply referred to being low on staff numbers because of work-related stress, absences and issues with management. She relies on this as a disclosure of information where the notes reflect the following: “Well, there has been lots of change but nothing positive has come from it, we were half a team down because of work related stress, absences and issues with management.”[231]Again, we found this to be a general allegation and not a conveyance of facts or disclosure of information.[232]She was asked about the meeting in March 2023 with the Deputy Dean and the Forensics team meeting that just-predated that, both events that had arisen a year previous. She indicated that she was not aggressive but genuinely concerned about the welfare of her colleagues; that she was ‘happy to be a whistleblower’. The Claimant indicated that this was the first time that her behaviour at the meetings had been raised with her.[233]Mark Milton sought information about the technical team, with the Claimant opining that there was juvenile and unprofessional behaviour from them and that one of the technicians did not want to work with the academics suggesting that Mike Lott give evidence as he too had been subjected to what she called similar ‘malicious and vindictive behaviour’. She denied that there had been any aggression from her and that she had remained professional and that everything had been ‘amicable’.[234]The Baseline Model was addressed. The Claimant clarified that until she went on sick she had been available and on time for her own lectures, but that the structure was chaotic. Booking three weeks’ annual leave during term time was discussed, as was the claim that she had been seeking to undermine Rhian Kinsella by gathering negative information, ‘dirt’, from the wider team which the Claimant denied. The Claimant raised that she felt she had been bullied and targeted and she was reminded that some of the concerns she had raised had been excluded as they had already gone through University processes. She refuted the concerns from students and confirmed that she had evidence to show that she had tried to support them. She confirmed that she had not had an appraisal since September 2022 and considered that the accusations were spurious.[235]She explained how the process and allegations had been traumatic and queried again, why they had only now been brought to her attention. She was reminded that Hayly Burns had communicated with her on 4 April 2023. She provided an explanation of her role as Course Leader and that she had always had good relationships with others in the team. She was asked what outcome she wanted and she expressed that she felt it would be difficult after the allegations. She felt it was a witch hunt. It was confirmed that time would be given for her to reflect on the question. Later she queried whether she could return after she had been accused of aggressive, violent behaviour.[236]Concerns were raised that the Claimant had been told that she had three months to raise a grievance and she was asked why she hadn’t raised any grievance given the multiple opportunities that had been given to her. Her response was that after the meeting with Martin Steggal, they had wanted to give the organisation a chance after changes were promised, referring to the 2022 restructure. She was again asked why the same concerns were being made without sign of a formal grievance. The Claimant expressed concerns that it appeared that there had been collusion after she had supported her colleagues in their grievances.[237]Mark Milton was asked why the sudden move to the dismissal procedure. He confirmed that the inference was that management ‘had enough’. He was questioned on this in live evidence and stressed the word ‘inference’ was important, rather than it was his judgment at that time.[238]The meeting ended with arrangements being made for a further meeting. Technician Grievance – 4 April 2024[239]On 4 April 2924, one of the technicians submitted a formal grievance against the Claimant [1228]. A decision was made not to include that grievance as part of the investigation into the Claimant for fear of overwhelming the Claimant and we accepted that Mark Milton neither saw the grievance nor took it into account when making his decision. April 2024 OH Assessment[240]The Claimant’s OH assessment took place on 9 April 2024, the Claimant by then having been absent from work with ‘work-related stress’.[241]The OH Report [218] reflected that the Claimant attributed her symptoms to issues at work including management style, relationship breakdown, lack of cohesion/consistency and workload. They stated ‘Mrs Parry does have other health concerns which are managed with medication at this time’.[242]They stated that the Claimant attributed her symptoms to work and opined that in their experience the symptoms that she reported were unlikely to resolve and likely to deteriorate so long as the factors she felt exacerbated them remained present. They recommended that the Claimant met with management to address the issues at work that she felt were yet to be resolved by management.[243]It their opinion that the Claimant meet the definition of disability, that her absence was not due to any health problem but her current reason for absence could be impacted or impact the underlying conditions. They further opined that the Claimant was fit to undertake her employed duties and to attend a meeting with the Respondent as the longer the matter continues, generally the harder it is to achieve a satisfactory resolution. Claimant’s Response – 12 April 2024 244. 12 April 2024, the Claimant submitted a very detailed response to the Timeline that had been sent to her, utilizing the Respondent’s document and providing additional column of information with further documents embedded including the Staff Engagement Plan, effectively setting out her explanation of how she had been treated since May 2020 after the Employee Engagement Survey [1237, 1238], updating it with further detail a day or so later [1256]. Within the document she repeatedly made reference that she had other evidence if required and provided reasons for not submitting grievances over the previous years despite being encouraged to do so.[245]Within that document she confirmed that she fully supported the implementation of the Baseline Model but set out an explanation of her difficulties. She also explained why she did not wish to attend a meeting with Rhian Kinsella without union representation. She considered Rhian Kinsella’s change in behaviour was evident within weeks after she had provided evidence to the independent investigator. Further investigation[246]As part of the process Rhian Kinsella and Hayley Burns were interviewed.[247]Rhian Kinsella was interviewed by Zoe Grainger on 16 April 2024 [1300]. She was asked about expectations of a Course and Module Leader in conjunction with the Baseline Model and student concerns and gave her explanation of the Claimant’s teaching in conjunction with that of Mark Boulter. She spoke of her personal relationship with the Claimant and explained her questioning of the Claimant after a lecture had been missed by the lecturer for one of the modules that she was Module Leader. She informed that the Claimant had informed her that she couldn’t work with the Technicians and wanted to leave.[248]She was asked why she thought the Claimant wouldn’t want to meet with her without TU representation and opined that Mark Boulter had set a precedent when he had refused to meet with her to discuss his hours. She was asked about performance reviews and explained that the Claimant had not booked hers into the diary. She confirmed that she hadn’t raised her concerns regarding her failings in the Baseline Model, Course or Model Leadership as she had been off work and she had not been aware of the issues until she had to step in, in her absence but maintained that before her sickness she had raised in team meetings that sessions should not be cancelled and that she had queried with her why a session had been cancelled.[249]She spoke of her view on how the Claimant’s behaviour impacted on other staff, and recounted how some staff would not work with the Claimant and Mark Boulter. She was asked of her relationship with the Claimant, and spoke of how the Claimant had previously criticized her previous line managers(Academic Subject Manager and Paul Jones) and whilst her relationship was ‘fine’ to begin with, she opined that the Claimant did not like to be managed and did not wish to work in a team. She confirmed that she wouldn’t want to work with the Claimant again and spoke of how there had been gossip of her breaching GDPR and that three police forces had investigated her which she indicated had been caused by the Claimant. She accepted on cross-examination that she did not like the Claimant, not because she had a view that the Claimant had been involved in Mark Boulter’s grievance but because, despite acknowledging that there had been a breach involving personal data that she had been responsible for, she considered that the Claimant had been incorrectly been disseminating to staff and students alike that she had been responsible for a data breach involving Helen Higgins across three police forces. She spoke of the multiple SAR requests that had been made before she commenced sick leave against a number of staff that had also caused upset.[250]The meeting ended that with Rhian Kinsella reporting that since the Claimant and Mark Boulter had left, the environment had become much more positive and sickness had improved. She opined that the Claimant’s return to the team would have a negative impact on both individuals and the team. She felt that for the Claimant to return it would be as though negative behaviour was rewarded.[251]In addition she gave evidence that she personally could not see a way that the Claimant could return. Her statement evidence, repeated in live evidence in cross-examination was that she did not know what ‘toxic culture’ was but that if there was such toxicity, the Claimant had been one of the drivers of this culture. She gave further evidence that since the Claimant has left, student satisfaction reviews had increased around 40%[252]Hayley Burns was also interviewed on 18 April 2024 [1311]. She confirmed that she had a chronology of events and explained how she had come into post in October 2022 and the Claimant had spoken of her frustration at the lack of support from Paul Jones and that Paul Jones had informed her that he had felt threatened by the Claimant. She spoke of threats of a grievance that had never materialised and no grievance or evidence to investigate, how the Claimant had indicated that in order to return to work she wanted a different line manager. been given. She spoke of the letter she had received from the Claimant in November 2022 and her subsequent exchanges with her and disappointment on not being given a new manager. She confirmed that over this period and in the early part of 2023, she had been performance managing Paul Jones who had not been meeting expectations as Head of Service and that the Claimant had not wanted mediation with him and had indicated that she had been working on a grievance.[253]She spoke of how her interactions with the Claimant had reduced when Rhian Kinsella had taken over line management and introduced how she had viewed the Claimant’s behaviour towards the Academic Subject Manager and how she had spoken to her about it later. She acknowledged that she had not reprimanded the Claimant at the time. She also spoke of witnessing the Claimant’s behaviour at the NSS meeting in March and how she had emailed her subsequently on 4 April 2023 and had referred her to OH after she was concerned about her erratic behaviour and mental health.[254]She confirmed that she had received the April OH report on 24 May 2024 and forwarded it to Rhian Kinsella a few days later. She confirmed that she had been expecting the grievance from the technician having spoken to the technicians line manager. She was asked what impact retaining the Claimant would have. She responded ‘I genuinely don’t see how we can’[255]After that meeting she provided to Zoe Grainger a document which set out her chronology of exchanges with the Claimant [1335] and documents, she considered were relevant. She also indicated that she would compile a note of her meetings with the Claimant [1317-1337][604][256]By 26 April 2026, Mark Milton had received and read these documents as part of his investigations into the Claimant’s grievance as well as the dismissal proceedings against her. He prepared a note of his observations to that point. We did not find that this demonstrated any predetermination on his part but rather was a reflection of his contemporaneous thoughts as at the period after the very first meeting [1341]. He noted the following:a. That he considered that the core of the case was that the Claimant had been continually raising issues that was disruptive and time-consuming exacerbated by continual claims that she had a grievance which had not been forthcoming;b. that whilst the Claimant had spoken to him of her concerns for others in her capacity as a Wellbeing officer she had failed to be explicit about matters she considered were her grievance;c. That the Claimant seemed to feel it her right to hold views on the capability of others to teach, yet failed to recognise that the Faculty had concerns over her management of her own teaching;d. He was satisfied that despite indicating that her behaviours were only now being challenged, evidence from the previous Head of School, Hayley Burns, was that she had been challenged;e. With regard to the technicians, he reflected that whilst the Claimant was critical of them, her lack of interaction impacted on her own workload and failed to assist in addressing performance issues. He noted that there was a breakdown in that relationship but did not consider that there was any evidence that the Claimant was playing a positive role;f. that he needed to review the evidence on compliance with the Baseline Model, annual leave and lack of support to students and that he considered the Claimant ‘evasive’ on whether she had been seeking ‘dirt’ on Rhian Kinsella;g. that the Claimant felt ‘bullied’ but that the issues she had raised had been dealt with and the fact that she was continually raising them was causing frustration;h. With regard to the performance reviews, that the Claimant had not had one since 2022 but that she had failed to sign up for an appointment.[257]At that point, he had a view that her managers were trying hard to manage her but that the Claimant was making every effort to evade the process of being managed and that she could be subject to a wide range of policies including capability and disciplinary, that at that point Rhian Kinsella was refusing to work with her and Hayley Burns was directly managing her.[258]He opined that if the Claimant accepted that she needed to meaningfully participate in the process to manage her performance, that she would stop the effort she was putting into distracting that, he could envisage not proceeding with a SOSR dismissal and revert to a management action plan/performance process.[259]He concluded that the duty of fidelity was relevant and on that the Claimant was failing; that the Claimant wanted to work on her own terms and not participating in the process of management. He had it in mind to make that clear to the Claimant and give her another week to consider whether she was prepared to work with her managers in good faith. Second Dismissal Meeting: 2 May 2024[260]On 27 April 2024, Zoe Grainger sent to the Claimant notes of the meetings with Rhian Kinsella and Hayley Burns together with a note of the meeting [1348] What was included is less than clear but there has been no allegation in this case from the Claimant that she was not aware of what the evidence was against her.[261]Again Claimant attended accompanied by her trade union representative and Mark Milton attended with Zoe Grainger in HR support and a note taker [1366]. In summary the following was addresseda. That Hayley Burns had raised issues in the past with the Claimant; that it should not have been a surprise to her. The Claimant accepted that but challenged allegations about her behaviour with a further discussion on how she had vented her frustrations regarding the technicians and that she felt that Paul Jones, whilst mild mannered was manipulativeb. Concern was raised why historic conduct concerns were being raised years later which Mark Milton accepted bit indicated that the Claimant was difficult to work with and a resulting breakdown in trust. Concern was also raised that the Respondent had not managed those concerns to the extent expected under capability and conduct policies.[262]The Claimant asserts that in stating the following, she made a qualifying disclosure [1368]: “It is part of my experience here. I have been trying to highlight poor behaviour and mismanagement. You are dragging up things that are historic.”[263]Again, in the context of the meeting, this is not a disclosure of information or conveying any fact other than the Claimant asserting that historic matters were being used against her.[264]The meeting continued with Mark Milton suggesting that management had tried to address her behaviour and conduct but that she had continually tried to distract. Student complaints were raised and the Claimant denied that there had been any against her.[265]She accepted that there was a possibility that she had been championing for others but that in her opinion the problems had never been dealt with. She was asked if her conditions had improved when Paul Jones had stepped down in March 2023 and she confirmed that she had been optimistic but that she had then been made aware of her bullying behaviour and when she had seen grievances from others, she could again see change. She confirmed that she felt that she was being bullied in retaliation for supporting those colleagues.[266]The Claimant’s lack of performance reviews was discussed as was her student interaction including lab sizes. She was asked why she wanted union representation for a management discussion and she explained how she had felt extremely vulnerable and had been advised by her union that she could ask for it and that she hadn’t considered that Hayley Burns was the right person to raise such concern[267]She was asked about returning and confirmed that she didn’t feel ‘comfortable in returning’. She confirmed that she had commenced ACAS conciliation but that she wanted a functioning workplace. When asked what that meant she confirmed that she would like management to listen to complaints and investigate issues; that people were fearful of speaking up. When asked who she was fearful of as without specifics it was difficult to look after her, she indicated that this came from management and faculty level confirming that she meant Hayley Burns, Rhian Kinsella and HR – she felt that there was collusion against her. In support of that belief, she raised that after she had given evidence for Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins, she felt Rhian Kinsella’s tone had become abrupt, almost rude[268]Mark Milton ended the meeting by expressing that he was concerned about the ability of the Claimant to move forward through normal processes and that the relationship with the department was so fractured that it could not continue. He asked the Claimant to confirm if she was happy to return to the workplace and after a break, she confirmed she was but realised that it was difficult taking into the views of Rhian Kinsella and Hayley Burn. She was not opposed to the possibility of a settlement and on that basis the meeting was adjourned.[269]The Tribunal have not been appraised of those discussions but agreement was not reached and final meeting was arranged.[270]A final meeting was arranged for 13 June 2024 and in advance of that meeting questions were prepared in advance including whether the Claimant wanted to return and what she needed to return [1399]. We accepted Mark Milton’s live evidence that at that time he was open to the prospect of the Claimant returning to work and was looking at ways of managing her effectively but that he felt that the Claimant was not and for her return to be productive, she needed to be part of that and she was not. Third Dismissal Meeting: 13 June 2024[271]Again, notes of the meeting were in the Bundle reflecting that he Claimant attended with her union representative [1404][272]The meeting opened with Mark Milton asking the Claimant if these had been dealt with highlighting Rhian Kinsella retaliating against the Claimant for providing evidence in the grievances and asking if the Claimant wanted to raise any further discussion. She was asked if she felt she had the opportunity to go through her grievance and whether there was anything else to consider. She confirmed that her 41 page document contained the evidence in support of her grievance as well as responded to the Timeline.[273]She did raise that there was a Teams chat regarding booking annual leave and that the Claimant had offered to cancel the leave and that the evidence to support this matter was poor.[274]Mark Milton informed the Claimant that if new matters were being raised at this stage, he would be disappointed and that it wouldn’t be his intention to consider new items. The Claimant responded that she wanted it highlighted that she had never been on long term sick. Mark Milton accepted in live questioning that he possibly misunderstood and that the claimant had not been expanding on her grievance.[275]The Claimant expressed that she had not discussed her grievance much and Mark Milton explained that they had been running alongside each other and that a number of matters within her grievance had been investigated. Mark Milton clarified in live evidence that Zoe Grainger had been tasked with investigating which third party issues had been dealt with and a conclusion had been reached that the matters outstanding within the Claimant’s grievance.[276]By this stage and on 12 June 2024 [1393], Zoe Grainger had already confirmed to the Claimant that this was:a. Retaliation for providing evidence against Rhian Kinsella and for expressing beliefs regarding negative and harmful workplace culture;b. High turnover and sickness absencec. Indirect Age Discrimination.[277]The Claimant indicated that she wanted to revisit her 41 page document to understand if there was anything further that she wanted Mark Milton to consider. She indicated that she would revert by the following week.[278]She was asked about feeling isolated and excluded and that specific evidence relating to this would be helpful.[279]She was asked why she was not back in work and she responded that she was still on sick leave and her managers did not want her to return. Whilst she accepted that no one had told her that she was not to return she felt vulnerable and bullied.[280]She relies on what was said at this juncture as a protected disclosure ‘I feel vulnerable, I feel bullied, I don’t think the workplace is fit for purpose’[281]Again, this is not a disclosure of facts but a general allegation.[282]She was asked what she needed to return and she confirmed that she wanted disciplinary action to be taken against her line manager, Rhian Kinsella and Hayley Burns and whilst she could do her job, she couldn’t see how it was possible under those managers. Previous requests for changes of line management was raised and she was asked why she felt she could determine who should manage her. She responded that she was asking for a workplace where staff were treated with respect.[283]She confirmed that she was not interested in mediation and felt uncomfortable in Rhian Kinsella’s company. She was asked if there was a different line manager would there be an issue having a transactional relationship with Rhian Kinsella and the technicians. The Claimant disputed that she had always worked well with the technicians and this had never been an issue. She was reminded that with her grievance she had stated ‘I feel I can do better on my own’. She responded that she and others would rather change assessments than work with Technicians[284]Matrix management was raised again whereby Rhian Kinsella would oversee the curriculum but that a different line manager would manage on a day to day basis. The Claimant considered that if Rhian Kinsella’s behaviour continued that would still be an issue for her. She considered that Rhian Kinsella had lied in her interview with Zoe Grainger. She considered that returning with a different line manager was a possibility. The meeting ended with the Claimant having time to submit further grievance submissions. She confirmed on 21 June 2024 that she had no additional evidence [1415].[285]By 26 June 2024. Mark Milton had committed to putting his private deliberations in writing with several iterations [1422, 1427, 1430]. Dismissal and Grievance Outcome letter [1435][286]On 9 July 2024, the Claimant was verbally provided with the outcome to the Dismissal Process and her grievances. She communicated that she had lodged her ET1 and that she felt it would be difficult to work with the team whilst that was being considered. She asked for that to be factored into the considerations.[287]On 10 July 2024, decision on her grievance and the decision that her contract of employment would be terminated was again confirmed in writing [1435]. The opening paragraph is significant “The concerns around the suitability for you to continue in your role as a senior lecturer, course leader and module leader given the negative behaviours and attitudes you have been demonstrating in meetings, and towards colleagues (academics and technicians) in the Forensics team which is causing disharmony and upset and the number of concerns relating to student experience as a result of a lack of leadership in your course leader role.”[288]In relation to the Grievances, it was confirmed that the complaints that the Claimant had raised concerning other colleagues which had been investigated previously and not upheld had not been considered as part of the Claimant’s grievance and that the Claimant’s grievances related toa. Retaliation for providing evidence brought by Mark Boulter and Helen Higgnis against Rhian Kinsellab. The high turnover of staff and high staff sickness ratesc. Indirect age discrimination[289]He set out his findings which included:a. events from November 2022 to May 2023, and how the Claimant had related concerns to Hayley Burns referencing the 2020 Employee Engagement Survey, but had not raised a grievance as ‘Initial Background’, as was her request to be moved from Paul Jones’ line management before moving to her time from commencement of being managed by Rhin Kinsella in May 2023. He also addressed the Claimant’s behaviour within the Initial Background including the meetings of 29 and 30 March 2023;b. More immediate background from May 2023 was also addressed and her relationship with Rhian Kinsella from a commencement in the role where she had encouraged Rhian to apply for Head of School, but had felt that after Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins’ grievances, she could see changed and felt bullied and fearful feeling collusion relying on a sense of change of tone from Rhian Kinsella. He addressed the purpose of meeting with Rhian Kinsella as part of the Dismissal process where the Baseline Model was discussed and how Rhian Kinsella had been perplexed by the change in relationship querying whether it had been because she was ‘strong’ on the Baseline Model. He referred to the student complaints only in the context of the Claimant’s reaction and requirement to have union representation;c. Her relationship with the Technicians was addressed and that the Claimant would not or could not work with them and her contradictory stance during the dismissal meetings on that issue.[290]He addressed her grievances:a. Retaliation: He found that Rhian Kinsella’s actions had been legitimate forms of performance support and management and whilst frustration was evident in some of the communications, none stepped into what could be termed ‘bullying’. He considered that management had taken the Claimant’s beliefs about workplace culture seriously, managing staff and implementing a change programme of team meetings to build connection across the team and that this had been undertaken in the absence of any clear examples from the Claimant. That the Claimant had been threatening grievances and to leave dated back to 2022 ut despite guidance and follow-up by management the information and evidence sought to seek improvement and manage any poor behaviour had not been forthcoming from her.b. He did not uphold that there had been such retaliation, Likewise, whilst he accepted that the Claimant provided that staff absence and turnover continued to be a team problem, the introduction of the Baseline model was reassuring and he was satisfied that management had sought to identify and address the issue.c. With regard to her indirect age discrimination based on the premise that Rhian Kinsella had targeted her Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins, he noted that direct age discrimination in the cases of Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins had not been established as part of their grievances. He noted that the Claimant had no Course Leadership since July 2021 yet a recent recruit with no industry experience had been appointed, but confirmed that the matter had been considered as part of the previous complaints and found not to be discriminatory after a full process. He indicated that without further information it was difficult to investigate whether there was a policy that had a discriminatory effect and on the evidence available, none was evident.[291]With regard to the irreversible breakdown he conclude that:a. He was satisfied that more than reasonable efforts had been made to address the Claimant’s issues and grievancesb. Line management in the period since late 2022 had moved twice resulting in the Claimant having three managers against whom the Claimant made similar complaintsc. When attempts had been made to discuss the Claimant’s performance, this had been met with barriers, including the Claimant requesting trade union representationd. Whilst the Claimant’s passion and support for colleagues was commended, the Claimant’s behaviours in threatening grievances, constant verbalising of complaints and dissatisfaction with colleagues and in public for a demonstrated an undermining of management; that had the specificity of information requested and promised by the claimant been provided greater strides could have been taken to develop the work environmente. Rebuilding of relationships was dealt with and it was noted that the claimant was unwilling to consider mediationf. He expressed concern at the Claimant’s behaviour during the dismissal meetings feeling that her approach had been to confuse the proceedingsg. He noted the Claimant’s reliance on treatment of Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins and Rhian Kinsella.[292]He concluded that the relationship had irrevocably broken down.[293]He concluded by considering options including Matrix Management but that Rhia Kinsella was the only manager able to oversee performance within the team and there were no other colleagues available.[294]He concluded that there was no medical reason for the Claimant not to return to work, and given the only basis that the Claimant was prepared to return was through Matrix Management which was not available, there was no option other than to terminate the Claimant’s employment. It was confirmed that her last day would be 10 July 2024 and the Claimant would receive payment in lieu. She was informed of her right of appeal. Appeal[295]By way of letter dated 18 July 2024 the Claimant appealed against her dismissal [1457] complaining of lack of evidence to corroborate the claims and no evidence that there was a stained and unprofessional working relationship and that she considered the SOSR process was not the true reason for dismissal.[296]She raised that she had in the past made qualifying disclosures of a ‘toxic workplace environment that related to health and safety as follows: “In the past, I have made several qualifying disclosures to all levels of management, which were made in the interest of my colleagues, the students and the public. My disclosures relate to the toxic workplace environment, which has rendered the workplace disorderly, unprofessional, unfit for purpose and dangerous. The disclosures I have made in the past relate to my concerns for the health and safety of staff and students, which I reasonably believe to be at danger; and my disclosures were made overall for the good of the forensic science department and the science subject disciplines. I believe, as a consequence of making these protected disclosures, I have suffered detriment, which has resulted in my dismissal. This is contrary to s. 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[297]She relies on this as a disclosure of information. We find again that no information is disclosed. It is simply for the first time the Claimant indicating that she considers that she has made protected disclosures and believes she has been dismissed because of that.[298]She complains of the notice she was given and that she did not consider a fair and just investigation had been undertaken. She also complained that her grievance had not been dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner and that he disciplinary should have been paused pending the grievance. She believed that the allegations were vexatious, malicious and frivolous.[299]The Claimant was invited to an appeal hearing [1476] in line with the Dismissal Policy and the appeal took place before Debbie Jones a Lay-Governor of the University on 28 August 2024. The Claimant was informed that Mark Milton and/or Zoe Grainger could be called to answer questions and she was entitled to be accompanied [1639][300]The appeal took the form of a review rather than a re-hearing and each of the grounds of appeal were dealt with, with concerns regarding failure to follow the capability process.[301]Debbie Jones formed the view that concerns were not limited to the Claimant’s performance but possibly personality clashes and that the relationship had broken down. She considered that detailed scrutiny of the student complaints and identity of the students was not within the scope of the dismissal process. She concluded that the issue regarding the Baseline Model was not one of capability but reluctance to follow the authority of management.[302]She also concluded that management had made considerable effort to support management and that issues of concern were not capability related. She considered whether there had been any disability discrimination in progressing the hearing but was satisfied that the OH report had indicated that the process should be undertaken as quickly as possible for the Claimant’s best interest.[303]She was not persuaded with the request that a full investigation of the department should be undertaken. She was questioned on whether concerns raised to Hayley Burns should have triggered the Whistle-Blowing Policy. She considered that she had no evidence of whistleblowing from the Claimant and needed to focus on the appeal.[304]With regard to the argument that SOSR had been used as a quick and illegitimate process and that performance management of Paul Jones in early 2023 indicated that the Claimant’s concerns must have been legitimate, she considered was too much of an assumption as the Claimant was capable and that when Rhian Kinsella had applied the Respondent’s policies, the Claimant’s demeanour had changed. She considered that the Claimant lacked selfawareness required to work with others and a general unwillingness to cooperate.[305]On 4 September 2024, the Claimant was sent the outcome letter [2077] confirming that they considered the original decision to be correct and were satisfied that the evidence demonstrated a fundamental breakdown in the relationship noting that the Claimant had been given more than reasonable opportunity to put forward her response and to offer insight as to how the relationship could be recovered or repaired. She concluded it was appropriate to consider what had been argued as capability issues as part of the procedure as it was in the context of a breakdown in relationship. She was satisfied that OH advice had been adopted and that no adjustments were recommended.[306]She dealt with the grievance matters and noted that the Claimant had nothing further to provide that would add weight or support to her grievance. She concluded that as the issues raised in the grievance were closely connected to the issues in the dismissal, it was reasonable for the grievance to be considered as part of the dismissal process.[307]She concluded that the appeal was not upheld and the decision to terminate employment stood. Submissions[308]On the first day of the hearing, the parties were directed to provide written submissions at the completion of the oral evidence and both Counsel filed detailed the Written Submissions by electronic copy on 29 June 2026. The Tribunal will not attempt to summarise those submissions, but incorporates them by reference.[309]The Respondent’s Written Submissions ran to some 37 pages and the Claimant’s Written Submissions ran to some 29 pages which are incorporated by reference. Oral submissions were also taken from both Counsel which focussed on the other’s written submissions.Conclusions
[310]We deal with the complaints in the order that they appear in the list of issues.[311]These proceedings concerned events spanning several years. The Claimant maintained that throughout that period she repeatedly raised concerns regarding workplace culture, staff wellbeing, workload, management conduct and the treatment of colleagues. She contended that the Respondent failed to address those concerns and that, as a consequence of raising them and supporting colleagues, she was subjected to retaliation and ultimately dismissed on grounds of those complaints and on an unfair basis.[312]The Respondent's position was fundamentally different. It contended that whilst the Claimant undoubtedly raised concerns over many years, she repeatedly failed to provide sufficient particulars or evidence to allow those concerns to be investigated. The Respondent maintained that the principal issue eventually became a breakdown in the working relationship between the Claimant and management which could not be repaired.The Law
[313]An outline of the applicable principles and case law relied on and referred to is set out in Appendix 2.Conclusions
[314]We deal with the complaints in the order that the representatives dealt with them and, save for the issue of time, as reflected in the list of issues. (2) Victimisation – s.27 and 39(4) EqA 2010 (§/71-73)[385]It is conceded by the Respondent that the Claimant did a protected act by giving evidence as part of an investigation into grievances raised by Helen Higgins and/or Mark Boulter on 10 January 2024 [§/72]. Whilst it is conceded that the Claimant’s submission of the First ET1 was a protected act, the Claimant withdrew any reliance on that protected act for the purposes of her detriment claim.[386]We then considered whether the Claimant was subjected to detriments as alleged on the ground that she had made a protected act(s). In doing so we considered whether the Claimant had established facts from which the we could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that victimisation occurred (Igen Ltd v Wong) and if the burden had shifted to the Respondent, had the Respondent proven that the protected act played no part whatsoever in the decision. We also acknowledged that a detriment cannot be because of a protected act in circumstances where there is no evidence that the person who allegedly inflicted the detriment knew about the protected act. In the absence of clear circumstances from which such knowledge can be inferred, the claim for victimisation will fail (Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon 2001 EWCA Civ 2005, CA).[387]The Claimant had submitted that key factors in our determination included:387.1 who made the decision to reduce the Claimant's responsibilities?;387.2 whether they knew about the protected act?;387.3 why they made the decision; and387.4 whether the protected act materially influenced the decision, even if there were other contributing reasons?[388]They argued that given the fact that the detriments followed shortly after the protected act, the Respondent’s evidence about the Claimant’s treatment thereafter needed careful examination. We agree and took each detriment relied on in turn. 389. a reduction in the Claimant’s workplace responsibilities on 25 January 2024 when she was overlooked for course leadership [§/73(a)];389.1 There is a dispute between the parties as to whether there was such a reduction. The Claimant’s counsel simply referred the Tribunal to relevant sections of the Claimant’s witness statements and submitted that it was clear that her responsibilities had been reduced. This had been addressed at the outset of the hearing at case management when Mr Murdin had clarified that the claim was meant to encompass a ‘failure to provide the Claimant with additional course leadership in January 2024’.389.2 Mrs Winston has argued that this is quite different from the pleaded case as failure to offer is not the same as a reduction and the claim has not been amended despite this having been raised at the outset. We agree and no application to amend had been made.389.3 On the basis of the Claimant as pleaded, we had found that there had been a reduction in her workplace responsibilities but that this had been a decision by Paul Jones in 2023 to assist the Claimant and which the Claimant had agreed to. There was no reduction in 2024.389.4 On that basis the victimisation complaint fails and is dismissed.389.5 However, even looking at it giving the pleaded case a wider interpretation of failure to offer her Course Leadership (which applies equally to the direct age discrimination complaint,) we concerned ourselves with the reason why the Respondent had appointed Alex Maneta (Nagarajan).389.6 The Claimant’s Counsel had argued that the fact that the detriments followed shortly after the protected act, that Mrs Kinsella’s tone changed when dealing with the Claimant and that she had refused to engage with this aspect of the evidence in cross-examination was sufficient to discharge the burden. Furthermore, they argued that Rhian Kinsella clearly knew that Ms Parry shared her colleagues’ concerns, and given her contemporaneous reference to the various grievances [1068] in which Mrs Kinsella had stated that: “there was a clear collaboration in the grievances” it was clearly more likely than not that Mrs Kinsella also knew that Ms Parry had given evidence in support of Mr Boulter and Mrs Higgins389.7 We accept that the appointment of Alex Maneta to the temporary role did arise shortly after the Claimant had given evidence on the grievances on 10 January 2024. This was insufficient in itself to draw an inference of discrimination and we assessed if there was anything more.389.8 The Tribunal had been taken to extracts of purported and separate exchanges between the Claimant and Rhian Kinsella, which the Claimant had created into a document for the purposes of her grievance/response to the disciplinary, to indicate a change in tone from Rhian Kinsella before and after the Claimant had given evidence in the grievance. That Rhian Kinsella was not prepared to concede that the limited evidence that the Claimant had provided was in fact an exchange that she had been involved in, did not persuade us without more, as sufficient to demonstrate a change of tone. In any event, we were not persuaded that there was real indication from that document that even if it was Rhian Kinsella, that the tone had changed, despite Mark Milton’s view on that issue given in live evidence when he conceded that there did appear a change in tone.389.9 Furthermore, and in any event, we had found that Rhian Kinsella did not know that the grievances from Mark Boulter and Helen Higgins had included complaints about age discrimination, or that the Claimant had given evidence in the grievances. She had a belief only that there must have been some collaboration between them and the Claimant about their grievances as she herself as part of the grievance investigation had been questioned as her private Stilts Café Conversation with the Claimant. That was insufficient to infer she had knowledge and we concluded that in fact Rhian Kinsella had limited knowledge of the detail of the grievance, had no knowledge that the grievances included elements of age discrimination and, what knowledge she did have, did not give rise to even a belief that an age discrimination complaint had been brought by either employee.389.10 Even if it could be said that Rhian Kinsella’s view that they had colluded led to a belief that there was an ‘age discrimination’ element to the grievances (which we had found she did not have) was sufficient to draw an inference when coupled with the timing, we were satisfied that the Respondent had demonstrated that the reason that the Claimant had not been appointed to cover the Course Leadership that had become available was predominantly because the Claimant had not expressed an interest initially and had only done so later after Alex Maneta’s appointment and whilst she was on sick leave, that Alex could fulfil the responsibilities and able to work in China.389.11 The complaint would have failed on that alternative basis in any event.[390]Having allowed the same person (Mark Milton) to conduct the investigation into the Claimant’s grievance and simultaneously conduct the investigation into the Claimant’s dismissal [§/73(d)];390.1 It is conceded that this arose but disputed that it is detriment. We agree. We did not consider that this act was of such a kind that a reasonable worker would or might take the view that it was to their detriment. Mark Milton was Chief Operating Officer, didn’t know the Claimant and, as the Respondent has submitted, was too senior to do the ‘bidding of management’. The grievances brought by the Claimant, days after the dismissal process had commenced against her and that were permitted, were relevant and linked with the relationship issues. It was within a range of reasonable responses to take the decision to run the two processes concurrently, the ‘detriment’ element of the test is not satisfied and the complaint fails.390.2 Furthermore, and in any event, we were not persuaded that Mark Milton did know, at the specific point in time that he determined to run the two processes concurrently, that the Claimant had provided evidence in support of the grievances. The claim would therefore fall on that basis in the alternative.390.3 The complaint fails and is dismissed. 391. a failure to properly deal with the Claimant’s grievance [§/73(e)]391.1 It is conceded by the Respondent that this would be a detriment if proven.391.2 The Claimant seeks to persuade us that during the first two Dismissal meetings Mark Milton shut down any attempt by the Claimant to raise her grievance [1200, 1366]) and that the purpose of the final meeting was ‘transparently a box-ticking exercise’ by the Respondent, designed to make it look as though the grievance had been properly considered [1404]. We accept that the issues on the Claimant’s grievances were not discussed in the first two meetings but we do not accept that the outstanding matters that were permitted as grievances, were dealt with in a superficial manner. Rather, we concluded that the Claimant was given ample opportunity to set out her grievances, that she did so within her 41+ page document which included embedded additional documentation and that she was given further opportunity to review that document and given until 21 June 2024 to submit any further information and did not do so.391.3 The Claimant had raised both ‘retaliation’ i.e. victimisation and ‘age discrimination’ within her grievance. Both were investigated and Mark Milton had concluded that Rhian Kinsella’s actions towards the Claimant were ‘legitimate forms of performance support and management’. He noted signs of frustration in some of the correspondence albeit the Tribunal did not necessarily consider that was a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.391.4 The victimisation complaint fails on a factual basis and is dismissed but in any event we did not find that Mark Milton’s knowledge of the Claimant’s involvement in the previous grievances was sufficient to infer discrimination and discharge the primary burden of proof.[392]Being isolated from team activities and ostracised in the workplace on 25 March 2024 [§/73(f)];392.1 We had no evidence to support any finding that the Claimant had been isolated from team activities and ostracised in the workplace on 25 March 2024, Claimant’s counsel referring only to an email from the Claimant of 22 March 2024 where she references her own past sickness absence [1140].392.2 This victimisation complaint fails on its facts. 393. during formal meeting held in line with the Respondent’s Dismissal Procedures, being challenged on the Claimant’s ability to repair broken relationships with her colleagues on 3 March 2024, 2 May 2024 and on 13 June 2024[§/73(g)];393.1 It is agreed that this was raised in the meetings but on the basis that the focus of the inquiry was to see what it would take to get the Claimant back to work.393.2 The Respondent disputes that this is a detriment, submitting that it is part of a discussion where the Claimant’s ability to return to the workplace was undertaken. We agree and do not conclude that challenging the Claimant’s ability to repair broken relationships, in the context of a dismissal process where the point of the meetings was to explore that issue, could reasonably be viewed as a detriment.393.3 The burden of proof in any event remains with the Claimant and whilst at this point Mark Milton did have knowledge of the protected act, even if we are wrong on the detriment point, no detailed submissions from the Claimant were made as to why the Claimant linked such a detriment to the protected act.393.4 We found that the reason why, was to explore whether the relationship could be repaired and that the protected acts were not a reason or had a significant influence on that decision.393.5 The complaint of victimisation fails and is dismissed. 394. dismissal [2§/14(a)].394.1 It is conceded that dismissal is a detriment and it is agreed that the Claimant was dismissed. We focussed on the reasons why for the dismissal, acknowledging that the protected act only needs to have a significant influence on the decision to dismiss and that we needed to look at conscious or unconscious motivation.394.2 We were not persuaded that the Claimant had proven facts from which we could find or infer that the reason for her dismissal, or that a significant influence on the decision to dismiss was that she had given evidence to support the grievances on 10 January 2024.394.3 No specific submissions were made by the Claimant’s counsel to persuade us otherwise. The Claimant has not discharged the burden of proof and the complaint fails. In any event, we accepted the explanation for Mark Milton’s decision, as reflected in his own draft musings as well as the final dismissal letter, that matters wholly unrelated to the Claimant giving evidence in the January 2024 were the reasons for dismissing the Claimant, particularly taking into account our conclusions on Rhian Kinsella’s lack of knowledge.394.4 The final complaint of victimisation is also not well-founded and is (3) Failure to make reasonable adjustments – s.20 EqA 2010 [§/76-79][2§/19- 22]394.5 In relation to knowledge of disability by reason of symptoms consistent with hypothyroidism and perimenopause11, the Claimant claims that the Respondent knew or could reasonably have been expected to know by 24 May 2023 on receipt of the First OH Report taking into account her repeated references to stress, workload and well-being, her sickness absence due to stress and the Stress Management Action Plan of 11 January 2023.394.6 We do not accept that and concluded that it was not until receipt of the Second OH report of April 2024 on 24 May 2024, and with it notice from the OH that they considered the Claimant fell within the definition of disability, could it be said that the Respondent reasonably should have been expected to know that the Claimant had the disability.394.7 The Claimant had been referencing her health and well-being well before 2022, as far back as July 2020 when she had an issue with her temporary line manager, but many of her references subsequently to wellbeing appear to relate generally to others and in other departments not to herself. The Claimant had taken sick leave in 2022 for a period from October to March 2023 but that in itself would not have been sufficient in our view to place the Respondent on notice of a potential disability by reason of hypothyroidism and perimenopause symptoms, the April 2023 OH report revealing only that informed them she had visited her GP after feeling constantly tired and fatigued, that blood tests revealed a low 11 Judgment of EJ Ryan 3 July 2025 that the Claimant is a disabled person by reason of symptoms consistent with hypothyroidism and perimenopause from Autumn 2022 to July 2025 thyroid function and she was reporting raised blood pressure, particularly in the context that no adjustments were required.394.8 She raised no issue regarding her conditions following her return to work and in particular we had found that she had raised no concerns regarding her conditions in response to discussions with introduction of the Baseline Model in the summer of 2023. Whilst the Claimant had described that the workplace was having an impact on her health and wellbeing in November 2023, it was not until the receipt of the OH report in the April / May of 2024 could it be said that the Respondent ought to have known the Claimant was disabled.394.9 It is conceded that the Respondent applied a provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) of:394.9.1 its Dismissal Process from 21 March 2024 [§/77]; and/or394.9.2 the imposition of the Baseline Model from 26 July 2023 until 10 July 2024 [§2/20].394.10 It is also conceded that the Respondent did apply both PCPs to the Claimant.394.11 The Claimant has relied on a substantial disadvantage of the PCPs causing her additional stress and adverse impacts on her medical conditions including severe fatigue, difficulty sleeping, poor cognitive function and difficulties conducting day-to-day activities [§/78a][2§/20-21] relying on her Disability Impact Statement dated 31 October 2024].394.12 This was not challenged and Respondent’s Counsel did not seek to argue that the Claimant had not demonstrated that the either PCP put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage as a disabled person in comparison with persons who are not disabled but did dispute that the Respondent had knowledge of any substantial disadvantage in any event.394.13 We therefore placed our minds to the knowledge of substantial disadvantage first.394.14 The Claimant’s Counsel suggests that the chronology of events, and the matters relied on to support knowledge of disability, again support the existence of knowledge of substantial disadvantage.394.15 We disagree. Based on our own findings, we were not persuaded that the Respondent had the requisite knowledge of substantial disadvantage of either PCP.394.16 With regard to the PCP of the Baseline Model, the submission made by Respondent counsel that the Baseline Model was little more (save for some additional time on practical sessions) than a requirement that the lecturers do their job to adhere to the minimum standards of Blackboard programme and something the Claimant has always contended that she was largely doing, was a conclusion that the Tribunal also formed. In addition, at no time had the Claimant raised with Rhian Kinsella, either during the early discussions on the introduction of the Baseline Model or after its implementation, that she was struggling due to any health condition.394.17 This was despite Rhian Kinsella offering assistance to the Team and specifically to the Claimant asking if she needed support. The Baseline Model was introduced in the summer of 2023, a time when it could not in our view be said that the Respondent were on notice of disability and that this did not arise until the following year, in April/May 2024. Whilst thyroid issues are flagged, there is no mention and the Claimant made no mention of perimenopause either in her OH report or to her managers directly.394.18 We therefore concluded that even though the Respondent ought reasonably to have known that the Claimant was disabled on receipt of the Second 2024 OH report, the Respondent had no knowledge of any disadvantage caused by the PCP of the Baseline Model.394.19 Further, consideration of whether the Claimant’s compliance with the Baseline Model in itself was not the consideration for the dismissal. Rather, it was the Claimant’s response to Rhian Kinsella seeking to address it with the Claimant.394.20 On that basis, the first s.20/21 EqA 2010 complaint fails and is[395]With regard to the second PCP of the dismissal procedure, again despite knowledge of disability, we concluded that it could not be said that the Respondent either had knowledge of substantial disadvantage or could reasonably be expected to know of the disadvantage at any point.[396]No submissions have been made by Counsel in relation to this PCP but we concluded as follows:396.1 The Second OH Report in April 2024 post-dated the commencement of the dismissal procedure on 21 March 2024;396.2 That report encouraged the employer to proceed as quickly as possible for the benefit of the Claimant; and396.3 At all times the Claimant was represented and at no time were adjustments requests for any of the meetings, whether pre-dating or postdating the receipt of the report.[397]On that basis, the second reasonable adjustment complaint in relation to the Dismissal Process as a PCP is also not well-founded and is dismissed. (4) Discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability – ss.15 and 39(2) EqA 2010 [§/80-81][2§/23-26]397.1 We would repeat our conclusion that the Respondent did not know or could not reasonably have been expected to know that the Claimant had the disability until receipt of the Second OH Report in April/May 2024. Knowledge is required of the disability only, section 15(2) EqA 2010 does not extend to requirement of knowledge that the “something” leading to unfavourable treatment is a consequence of disability;397.2 It is conceded that the Respondent subjected the Claimant to unfavourable treatment of:397.2.1 its dismissal process [§/80-81]; and397.2.2 dismissal [2§/24].397.3 We considered the approach in Pnaiser and focussed on our determination on the cause of the treatment, examining as far as able the conscious or unconscious thought processes and acknowledging that there may be more than one reason but the “something” must have a significant or more than trivial influence so as to amount to an effective reason for the unfavourable treatment.397.4 We addressed the question of whether either the dismissal process or the eventual dismissal was unfavourable treatment was because of something arising in consequence of the Claimant’s disability, namely her inability to always adhere to the Baseline Model since its implementation in July 2023.397.5 The Claimant submits that in reality, its centrality in the Claimant’s exposure to the dismissal process and eventually dismissal is clear and explicit as:397.5.1 In the First Dismissal meeting, the Claimant’s inability to always adhere to the Baseline Model is raised;397.5.2 Mark Milton notes it within his deliberations; and397.5.3 He directly refers to it within his dismissal letter referencing Rhian Kinsella saying that she had got on with the Claimant and queries whether she had been ‘strong on the baseline model’.397.6 The Respondent accepts that the Claimant’s failure to follow the Baseline Model contributed to the evidence against the Claimant [§/80a][2§/25-26] and it is accepted by the Respondent that in her request for advice to Antonia Faithfull, Rhian Kinsella raised the fact that the Claimant has ‘consistently not followed’ the Baseline Model’ and was one element of that report. However Respondent’s counsel seeks to persuade us that this was alongside a full description of other problems.397.7 We agree with the Respondent’s submissions and we were not persuaded that the Claimant’s dismissal process was either commenced nor was she dismissed because of any ‘inability’ to adhere to the Baseline Model.397.8 As the Dismissal Process was commenced, and at least the First Dismissal meeting took place, before knowledge of disability, any complaints in relation to the commencement of the process and/or initial meeting would fail.397.9 In any event and in relation to both complaints, of the Dismissal Process and the dismissal itself, we focussed on our findings on:397.9.1 Rhian Kinsella’s initial request for advice where the concerns regarding the adherence to the Baseline Model do play a part;397.9.2 The invite to the first Dismissal meeting that focussed on behaviours and attitude;397.9.3 The evidence in relation to what was said at the Dismissal Meetings; and397.9.4 The Dismissal letter, which opened with concerns regarding the Claimant’s suitability to continue due to negative behaviour and attitudes and where the Baseline Model was addressed in the context of the change in relationship with Rhian Kinsella after she had raised non-adherence with the Claimant as opposed to the non-adherence itself;397.10 We concluded any inability to follow the Baseline Model was not a significant influence so as to amount to an effective reason for the Dismissal Process, whether commencement or continuation, or the dismissal itself. It had always been the Claimant’s case that she had been complying with it, and it is difficult to understand how she now argues that she had an inability to do so.397.11 On that basis the complaints under s.15 Equality Act 2010 are not well-founded and are dismissed. Direct age discrimination – ss.13 and 39(2) EqA 2010 [§/82-84]397.12 The Claimant’s age group is 45 – 60 years old, referred to as senior colleagues and they compare their treatment with people in the age group 25-35. The Claimant asserts that Alex Maneta, her comparator is within this younger age group and whilst Rhian Kinsella did not know that comparator’s age, nor did the Tribunal on the evidence before it, it appears from the Respondent’s Counsel’s submissions, that the relative ages are not in dispute.397.13 We therefore addressed the question of whether the Respondent treated the Claimant less favourably than they treated Alexandra Maneta because of her age by not providing the Claimant with leadership responsibilities in or around February 2024 [§/83].397.14 The Claimant says that it is a matter of fact that the Claimant was not offered the BSc Forensic Science Course Leadership around February 2024 and relies on the difference in treatment with that younger colleague, the timing of the decision and the evidence. The Claimant’s counsel was asked to identify what he meant by ‘the evidence’ and he referred to the credibility of Rhian Kinsella.397.15 The Respondent says that the Claimant held three Course Leadership positions up to her dismissal and the claim as pleaded ignores that.397.16 We were not persuaded that timing was sufficient to discharge the primacy burden of proof. We considered Rhian Kinsella to be a credible witness and was simply not willing to ‘age’ the comparator and concluded that she did not know her age, was not prepared to hazard a guess and was requiring the counsel to identify that age. This was not something that the Tribunal viewed as evasive, particularly as the Claimant’s counsel was unable to identify where in the evidence, Alex Maneta’s age had been identified. This also was insufficient to draw any inference.397.17 We concluded that the Claimant had failed to prove facts from which we could find or infer that the reason for any less favourable treatment, was age.397.18 In any event, we had found that the Claimant hadn’t indicated a desire to be considered for the temporary post initially and that the reason for the appointment of Alex Maneta i.e. the treatment, was that she had expressed an interest, had capacity and had ability to teach in China, an issue that was not challenged. That the Claimant was not considered again in February was because of the Claimant’s sickness and not her age.397.19 The complaint of direct discrimination is not well-founded and is (6) Indirect age discrimination – ss.19 and 39(2) EqA 2010 [§/85-88]397.20 Again, it is conceded that the Respondent did apply a provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) of taking cost cutting measures in the Summer of 2023 and the Autumn and Spring Term 2023/2024 [§/86 – 87(a)] and conceded that the Respondent’s application of that PCP did or would have applied that PCP to staff outside the Claimant’s age group, namely younger staff.397.21 It is not conceded that the PCP put persons within the Claimant’s age group, being those between 45 – 60 years old and referred to as senior colleagues, at a particular disadvantage in comparison with younger staff, in that colleagues in the Claimant’s age group are more likely to be on higher salaries due to their experience and length of service [§/868] (“Group Disadvantage”). The Respondent’s submission is predicated on Group Disadvantage not having been evidenced or proven, submitting that the Tribunal cannot take judicial notice of such disadvantage.397.22 Claimant’s Counsel submitted that this was evidenced by the fact that senior colleagues were targeted, such as Helen Higgins and Mark Boulter, who were both forced out of their senior lecturing roles at the University of South Wales, after 19 years and 15 years’ service, respectively.397.23 We had no evidence of relative ages or salaries of those that the Claimant asserted had been targeted and had insufficient evidence, even taking their witness statements at face value, to draw any positive findings or in turn conclusions that they had been ‘targeted’ due to age. Indeed, the only evidence was that their grievances which had partly related to age discrimination had not been upheld.397.24 The complaint is not well founded and is dismissed. (7) Protected disclosure – Part IVA Employment Rights Act (‘ERA’) 1996 [§/89-98][2§/27(b)-(e)][398]During case management on the second day of the final hearing, the Tribunal directed the Claimant's counsel to identify, by way of a schedule, the information disclosed or facts conveyed in respect of each alleged protected disclosure, including the words relied upon. Counsel produced such a schedule (described as a Scott Schedule), but it largely repeated the pleaded case. It did not enable the Tribunal to identify what information or facts were said to have been disclosed, nor did it explain why any disclosure was said to fall within section 43B(1)(b) and/or (d) ERA 1996. Counsel was therefore directed to provide further particulars at the submissions stage.[399]In written submissions, counsel referred back to the Scott Schedule and relied generally upon the disclosures identified in the List of Issues (§23) and that schedule. He indicated that he did not propose to address each alleged disclosure individually. Beyond reminding the Tribunal of the relevant legal principles, he did not advance detailed submissions, either written or oral, as to why the individual disclosures constituted qualifying disclosures. He submitted that some of the communications relied upon contained expressions of opinion, but that the distinction between "information" and "allegation" should not be applied in an unduly technical manner. He referred to the observations in Kilraine at paragraphs 34–36 that there is no rigid dichotomy between the two and that a communication may contain both information and allegation. He submitted that, in each instance, the Claimant reasonably believed that the information disclosed tended to show a relevant failure, that the disclosure was made in the public interest, and that it was unnecessary to establish that it was in fact in the public interest: Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed.[400]By contrast, counsel for the Respondents made detailed submissions in relation to each alleged disclosure. We do not repeat those submissions in these reasons.[401]It was clear from the evidence that the Claimant was dissatisfied with the Staff Engagement Plan following the Employee Engagement Survey and that, in her capacity as Wellbeing Officer, she was concerned about conditions within the School and Faculty. We accept that she believed there were workplace problems during 2019 and 2020 and that she wished to improve matters. However, a genuine belief that problems exist is not, of itself, sufficient.[402]The central difficulty for the Claimant was that the communications relied upon largely comprised descriptions of outcomes, impressions and conclusions rather than disclosures of information. They consisted predominantly of general assertions concerning a "toxic culture", "wellbeing concerns", "workload pressures", "poor management" and dissatisfaction with workplace conditions. Whilst these matters were plainly important to the Claimant, the communications generally lacked the factual content and specificity necessary to identify conduct capable of investigation. References to a "toxic culture" did not explain the conduct said to constitute that culture. References to staff wellbeing concerns did not identify the factual circumstances giving rise to those concerns. Allegations of bullying, harassment and mismanagement were commonly expressed at a high level of generality and without supporting detail.[403]Even after considering the witness evidence in its entirety, comprising in excess of 165 pages of witness statements and eight days of oral evidence, we remained unable to identify sufficient factual content or specificity capable of tending to show either a breach of a legal obligation or a danger to health and safety.[404]For those reasons, we were not persuaded that the communications relied upon amounted to qualifying disclosures for the purposes of the whistleblowing provisions.[405]In reaching that conclusion, we considered each alleged disclosure individually. We focused on whether the communication conveyed information in the ordinary sense of that term, namely facts, whilst recognising that information and allegation are not mutually exclusive concepts. Consistent with Kilraine, we considered whether the communication contained sufficient factual content and specificity to be capable of tending to show the relevant failure. We also considered the disclosures collectively. We examined them individually, by recipient group, and in their overall context, taking into account any relevant background circumstances known at the time they were made.[406]Although a chronological analysis would ordinarily provide the clearest means of assessing how disclosures evolved over time and the context in which they were made, we considered that approach impractical in this case. The disclosures had been identified and advanced by the Claimant in a nonlinear manner, as reflected in the List of Issues.[407]In many instances, we found that the Claimant had not disclosed information at all. In a number of instances, we were unable to determine with sufficient confidence what had been communicated and therefore could not find that any qualifying disclosure had been made. In the comparatively few instances where facts were conveyed, those facts were insufficient to tend to show a relevant failure within section 43B ERA 1996. Generally simply because the Claimant referred back and repeatedly to an historic 2019 survey, did not lead us to conclude that she had demonstrated that either she personally had a subjective belief that any disclosure tended to show the statutory failing or that any disclosure was in the public interest. Likewise, it failed to persuade us generally that even if she did have a belief that this was objectively reasonable – the survey was across the faculty and was historic; management had changed over the years. The disclosures therefore lacked the necessary basis to attract statutory protection.[408]Where appropriate, we have also explained why we concluded that she did not genuinely believe that the matters raised tended to show a prescribed failure, or that the matters asserted were true or capable of being true. In those cases, we further concluded that any such belief was not objectively reasonable.[409]We reminded ourselves throughout of the guidance in Kilraine that there is no rigid distinction between information and allegation. We specifically considered references to staff turnover, sickness absence, workload, breaks and staff wellbeing, both individually and collectively. Even viewed in the round and in their proper context, those communications did not contain sufficient factual content and specificity to tend to show a relevant failure. Accordingly, the Claimant has failed to establish that she made any qualifying disclosure. Her complaints under the protected disclosure provisions are therefore dismissed.[410]We deal with each individual disclosure as follows:410.1 following a team meeting on 22nd November 2023, the Claimant raised concerns about the health of students and staff due to the chaotic workplace and toxic culture. (PD1) [§/89(a)];410.1.1 This was one of later of the Claimant’s disclosures that she relies on and the last disclosure that she relied on for her detriment complaints, the Claimant’s disclosures relevant to detriment commencing on 19 March 2020 to Dawn Story.410.1.2 For context, this was a disclosure asserted to have been made to Rhian Kinsella after a Team meeting convened to discuss cover for teaching in Mark Boulter’s absence on sick leave after Rhian Kinsella had challenged him about his hours and later formed part of the subject matter of his grievance against her. Rhian Kinsella had formed the view that some of his modules, for which the Claimant was Course Leader, had not been appropriately planned for and that one particular lecture was taking place at the time that the meeting was taking place. It is conceded by the Respondent’s counsel that if the words had been said, by that stage that Mark Boulter was upset regarding Rhian Kinsella’s conversation with him regarding his hours. The Claimant asserts that she disclosed how chaotic the workplace was and the negative impact it was having on her, staff and students. She also expressed that she was ‘appalled with how Mark Boulter has been treated’ describing the workplace ‘as not fit for purpose’. Toxic culture is not in fact used by the Claimant in this particular disclosure despite the List of Issues.410.1.3 Whilst we accept disclosures were made regarding upset over Mark Boulter, we were not persuaded that the Claimant had proven that the specific disclosures she relied on had been made, preferring the evidence of Rhian Kinsella and that the Claimant had not referenced wider issues of health and safety. On that basis, we concluded that this was not a qualifying disclosure.410.1.4 Further, we were not persuaded that the Claimant believed at this time that the disclosure was in the public interest or, even if she did, this was a reasonable belief. The concerns clearly related only to Mark Boulter and the Claimant’s unhappiness at the way she considered he was being treated. This was a disclosure that served the private interest of Mark Boulter.410.2 in several meetings with Dr Paul Jones (Head of Subject for Biological and Forensic Sciences) and Rhian Kinsella the Claimant raised concerns about the health and safety of staff and students. (PD2) [§/89(b)]410.2.1 26/7/21 - The first of such disclosures predates the first relied on by over two and a half years, dating back to 26 July 2021 and follows on from her annual performance review with Paul Jones. We had found that the email contained no disclosure of specific information nor did it convey any facts. Rather, it was a statement of the Claimant’s opinion that ‘well-being’ of staff needed to be addressed as a matter of priority and that a general statement that a high turnover of staff related to well-being concerns and job dissatisfaction. It lacks specificity and is little more than an allegation. In any event, we concluded that the Claimant had not persuaded us that the context in which it was said could lead it to be a disclosure tending to show a legal obligation was in issue or that health and safety was in danger. This was not a qualifying disclosure410.2.2 18/10/22 – The Claimant relies on this lengthy email to Paul Jones as containing her disclosure of information. The context was that this was her email response to Paul Jones’ email to the Forensic Science team regarding his own concerns on health and safety and the need for risk assessment documentation to be completed. We had found that the only facts conveyed were that the Claimant did not have time to complete the COSSH documents, despite all labs needing to have accompanying COSSH documents, or have time to provide practical lab scripts to the technical team and that she had prioritised teaching activities, timetabling and responding to email. She opined that it was not possible to maintain heavy workloads. Whilst some facts have been conveyed we concluded that they did not tend to show that a legal obligation was being breached or that the health and safety of an individual was in danger. Furthermore, we agree with the Respondent’s submissions that the opposite is true and we do not conclude that the Claimant has demonstrated that she had a subjective or objective reasonable belief that this disclosure tended to show that there was either. Further, there was no evidence to persuade us that this was in any form of public interest but was of its nature a personal issue, impacting on a limited number of staff within the Forensic Team. This is a qualifying disclosure.410.2.3 25/10/22 – This disclosure was made to Paul Jones in the context of the Claimant notifying him that she was going on sick leave following her complaint to him a few days prior regarding the Technicians, who she considered was being difficult towards Mark Boulter. We had found that this comment had not disclosed any information or conveyed any facts with any specificity. This is not a qualifying disclosure.410.2.4 10/11/22 – This disclosure was made to Paul Jones in an email whilst on sick leave. Save for confirming that she had raised ‘issues’ in the past and had attempted to address concerns over ‘toxic culture’ and its impact, no information is disclosed. It conveys no facts tending show a breach of a legal obligation or health and safety danger. This is not a qualifying disclosure.410.2.5 28/3/22 – This disclosure was made to Rhian Kinsella in an informal Stilts Café Conversation prior to Rhian Kinsella applying for Head of School and just after the Claimant had returned from sick leave. It was accepted that the Claimant raised issues around ‘culture’ and inaction of management. We could make no positive findings as to what, if anything was disclosed, or what facts, if any, the Claimant conveyed other than the Claimant likely disclosed to Rhian Kinsella that she had fallen out with members of the Technical Team. We did not find that discussing the ‘state’ of the subject area was a fact. Referencing ‘toxic workplace culture’ is not conveying any facts or disclosing information. Likewise, expressing a concern that someone could do something ‘extreme as a consequence or workplace pressures’ whilst a significant and serious allegation to make, it is not conveying any fact..410.2.6 17/5/23 – This was asserted to have been made in an email to Rhian Kinsella but we have no evidence to find that such an email had been sent, none being in the Bundle. Claimant’s counsel was likewise unable to assist. Rhian Kinsella’s evidence was that she did not believe she received such an email and the Claimant gave no witness statement evidence. In the absence of such a document and in light of the assertion made, we found that the Claimant as not proven that she made a positive disclosure of information and/or conveyed any facts. The Claimant has not proven this as a qualifying disclosure.410.3 the Claimant approached Ceri Dixon (Deputy Head of HR) on several occasions, via face-to-face meetings and emails, raising health and safety concerns. (PD3) [§/89(c)];410.3.1 27/9/21 – for context, this is a disclosure that was asserted to have been made in a meeting on 27 September 2021 to Ceri Dixon. The Claimant relies on an email that post-dated the meeting that she sent to colleagues as demonstrating what had been communicated in the meeting but we had been unable to make any positive findings as to what information had been disclosed at that meeting by the Claimant, if any, other than generalised allegations of ‘toxic culture’ This was no a disclosure of information nor, if it was, could it be said to show or tend to show breach of any legal obligation or health and safety danger.410.3.2 7/10/21 – Again, the context is that the meeting was held to discuss general concerns and the Claimant relied on the follow-up email of 9 October 2021 sent to her colleagues as evidencing what had been said at that meeting. That email did not assist in the Tribunal determining what concerns had been raised at the meeting with any degree of specificity such that we could make no positive findings that there had been any disclosure of information or any facts conveyed even taking the Claimant’s claim at its highest and she had said the words set out in her subsequent email.410.3.3 2/12/21 - This disclosure is asserted to have been made in an on-campus meeting took place on 2 December 2021 with Paul Davies and Ceri Dixon. We agree that the context is ongoing complaints from the Claimant and her close colleagues, using repetitive language such as ‘workload’, ‘toxic culture’ and ‘’poor wellbeing but what was actually said in that meeting is not in evidence before us, the Claimant relying solely on a follow up email that was sent subsequently. Whilst borderline, none of these statements convey facts, simply allegations without any facts.410.4 the Claimant raised health and safety concerns in Teams meetings with Professor Donna Whitehead on 1 September 2022 and 2 April 2023 (PD4) [§/89(d)];410.4.1 1/9/22 - The context of this disclosure is that having just gone through a restructuring and just before the start of the 2022/2023 academic term, the Claimant was invited to give feedback on the NSS Action Plan. We found that whilst ‘toxic culture’ and ‘poor management impacting on students’ experience’ again are used and relied on, and that the Claimant had opined that this impacted on the NSS score, no evidence was provided on what information the Claimant provided on what ‘she deemed to be the issues that were negatively impacting the students’ satisfaction’. Further, whilst the Claimant had claimed that she had provided more detailed information regarding the ‘toxic culture, mismanagement and workload issues’, this was not in evidence before us. We could find no disclosure of information tending to show either a breach of a legal obligation nor health and safety danger.410.4.2 2/4/22 – No positive findings have been made on what, if anything was said on this date, the Claimant not proving a disclosure of information tending to show any of the prescribed matters.410.5 the Claimant raised health and safety concerns to Dr Paul Davies via a number of email correspondence and face-to-face meetings (PD5) [§/89(e)];410.5.1 7/10/21 – The context of this disclosure is that it is asserted to have followed the 27 September 2021 meeting that the Claimant attended together with a colleague to discuss ‘workplace culture, health and well-being workload etc.’ that forms part of PID3. The Claimant had given no witness statement evidence on what was said at this meeting and relied only on a follow-up email of 9 October 2021 sent to her colleagues that did not assist in determining what concerns had been raised at that meeting. Again, we could make no positive findings that there had been any disclosure of information or any facts conveyed even taking the Claimant’s claim at its highest and she had said the words set out in her subsequent email.410.5.2 2/12/21 – The context is that these disclosures are asserted to have been made in on-campus meeting took place on 2 December 2021 with Paul Davies and Ceri Dixon but again what was actually said in that meeting is not in evidence before us, the Claimant relying solely on a follow up email that was sent subsequently that the Claimant asserts emphasised the points of discussion that took place at the meeting and we had not been persuaded that this was compelling evidence that the Claimant had in fact provided specific information at the meeting. We deliberated over whether, taken at face value what had been written was of sufficient specificity to amount to a disclosure of information, but found that what had been communicated was more in the form of again, a general allegation. We could make no findings on contextually how it was said without further evidence.410.6 on 12 April 2022 the Claimant raised health and safety issues as concerns for staff and students to Professor Martin Steggell (PD6) [§/89(f)]; 410.6.1 The context is that this disclosure is asserted to have been made when a meeting was arranged with the Pro Vice Chancellor Martin Stegell on 12 April 2022 following the meetings with Ceri Dixon and Paul Davies the previous December. She relies on a presentation to the Pro-Vice Chancellor regarding concerns and taking the Claimant’s pleaded case at face value, we accepted that reference to ‘lack of breaks’ was a fact that had been conveyed, the remaining comments again being allegations, accepting that workload being manipulated to conceal or exaggerate did contain some degree of specificity. However we were not persuaded in any event that it was objectively reasonable for the Claimant to have had any reasonable belief that such a disclosure would be in the public interest being limited to a small number of colleagues.410.7 the Claimant, via emails, meetings and at a School Forum, the Claimant challenged the wellbeing of staff and serious concerns regarding mental health to Dr Dawn Story (PD7) [§/89(g)];410.7.1 1/4/20 – The Tribunal had found that the context was personal, but not related to the discovery of the personal relationship between the Claimant and Michael Lott as submitted by the Respondent, but rather the Claimant complaining about the Academic Subject Manager instructing her to ensure support for students was completed during time-tabled sessions. Either way, we did not find that any information or facts had been conveyed within that email, nor indeed in the subsequent email of 1/7/20. Further that this was a personal matter as conceded by the Claimant and did not meet the public interest test.410.7.2 8/12/20 – The context was the Claimant attending a meeting as Helen Higgins’ support. No detail has been provided and as we have referred to in our findings, despite having further opportunity in live evidence to clarify what specific information had been communicated, the Claimant has still only evidenced that she raised general concerns about staff welfare, management conduct and systematic issues and other than finding that statements of her own generalised ‘concerns’, the Tribunal found that there was nothing specific in what had been disclosed to Dawn Story at that meeting, no disclosure of information and no facts conveyed.410.7.3 13/10/21 – The context of the asserted disclosure is a School Forum. Whilst the statements are serious and significant, they are general and contain no information, the Claimant’s statement evidence not clarifying any particular factual detail and again little to no evidence is contained in any of the witness statements as to what was said in that School Forum save that it is an agreed fact that at the School Forum the Claimant raised ‘concerns’ and was told that this was not an appropriate forum to do so. The only documents within the Bundle that could further assist were emails post-dating that meeting that reference that ‘concerns’ had been raised. It appears that there had been ‘references to alleged bullying, harassment and nepotism’ raised in the meeting, as reflected in the email sent by Dawn Story of 15 October 2021.410.8 the Claimant both in writing and verbally raised grave concerns regarding the staff students’ safety as a consequence of the workplace culture and the impact on mental and physical health to Hayley Burns (PD8) [§/89(i)];410.8.1 18/11/22 – the context is that the asserted disclosures are contained in a letter to Hayley Burns. Again whilst the Claimant refers to ‘toxic culture’ within Chemistry and Forensic Science and that ‘the behaviour of some staff was not only unprofessional, but could be described as vindictive, disruptive and malicious’, these are not facts but the Claimant’s opinion of third parties. This was not a qualifying disclosure410.8.2 11/1/23 – The disclosure relied on is made within the Claimant’s Stress Management Action Plan and the text the Claimant relies on discloses no facts only generalised statements and the Claimant’s opinion. This was not a qualifying disclosure.410.8.3 13/2/23 – The disclosure relied on is within an email sent by the Claimant to Hayley Burns, after the Claimant has been off sick since October 2022 following her dispute with the technicians and is seeking to return to work. Again, it is generalised comment conveying no facts. In our judgement, even if that is wrong, this was very much of a personal dispute for the Claimant and a very limited number of staff within Forensic Science that it could not be said that we considered the Claimant had demonstrated that she subjectively considered that such a disclosure was in the ‘public interest’. Further, objectively she could not have had that as a reasonable belief.410.8.4 1/12/22 - The context was that a meeting with Hayley Burns but again specific disclosures again are less than clear, there are no notes of that meeting but the Claimant asserts that she ‘expressed concerns regarding the health, safety and wellbeing of staff and the impact it was having on student experience. The Claimant also asserts that she told Hayley Burns that she had expressed her concern in the past and that ‘it would come as no surprise if a member of staff was do something as a consequence of workplace conditions.’ We found that these were generic statements containing no disclosure of information or facts with any sufficient degree of specificity.410.8.5 We repeat that conclusion in respect of the meetings on 12/1/23, 31/2/13 and 28/3/23410.9 the Claimant made her trade union representative fully aware of the issues (PD9) [§/89(j)]; 410.9.1 Whilst this may be correct, a disclosure to the trade union is not a disclosure to the employer and the Claimant has not proven why a private disclosure to her trade union representative qualifies for protection.410.10 on 25 March 2024 within her grievance, the Claimant raised concerns that the Respondent had failed in its health and safety duties towards staff and students. (PD10) [§/94(a)]; 410.10.1 The context is that the Dismissal process has commenced and whilst the Claimant again alluded to ‘wellbeing’, ‘toxic culture’ ‘mismanagement’ and ‘abuse of power’ and did assert high turnover of staff impacting on student experience, and management reluctance to resolve matters being a breach of health and safety, she provides no facts nor discloses any specific information to support the broad allegations. Whilst we accept that it does refer to other staff, we would repeat that the Claimant has not persuaded is that this satisfied the public disclosure element and conclude that this was referencing very much matters of a private dispute with the technical staff.410.11 on 25 March 2024 within her grievance, the Claimant raised concerns about the Respondent failing to allow her to exercise her legal right to free speech. (PD11) [§/94(b)]; 410.11.1 Again allegation that she is being targeted because she had expressed views on toxic culture. No specific information or facts are included and she cannot subjectively have reasonably believed that this was a public interest issue when the concern is that she has been not allowed to exercise her legal right to free speech.410.12 the Claimant raised health and safety concerns relating to the staff within the forensic science team during the dismissal process hearings on 3 April 2024, 2 May 2024 and 13 June 2024. (PD12) [2§/27b];410.13 the Claimant repeated PD1-PD12 in the 40+ page document sent to Mark Milton and Zoe Grainger on 12 April 2024. (PD13) [2§/27c];410.14 the Claimant repeated PD1-PD12 in her first ET1. (PD14) [2§/27d];410.15 the Claimant referenced the Respondent’s duty of care to its employees in respect of health and safety in her letter dated 26 July 2024 appealing her dismissal. (PD15) [2§/27d].[411]We deal with PID12-15 collectively, we concluded that none of the disclosures relied on amounted to qualifying disclosures in that they did not contain information or convey facts with sufficient specificity (8) Detriment for making protected disclosures – s.47B ERA 1996 [§/89-97][412]As, in the Tribunal’s judgement, none of the disclosures PID1-PID9 were qualifying and/or protected disclosures, it follows that the Claimant’s complaints that she was subjected to the detriments relied on, on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure or disclosures, fail.[413]However, even if we are wrong in our judgement on the disclosures not qualifying for protection, we would say as follows:413.1 The protected disclosure need not be the sole or principal reason for the treatment. It is sufficient if it “materially influenced (in the sense of being more than a trivial influence) the employer's treatment of the whistleblower" (Fecitt paragraph 45).413.2 However, many of the disclosures relied on pre-date the events that were taken into consideration during the dismissal process. They were too remote in time and/or unrelated to the individuals who had management of the Claimant to have had, in the Tribunal’s view, any material influence over the events in 2024, including not being offered course leadership. These included all of the disclosures within PID2 through to PID7 save for the disclosure to Rhian Kinsella on 28 March 2023 (forming part of PID2).413.3 On that alternative basis, we would have concluded that those particular disclosures were not causative of any of the detriments relied on.413.4 Dealing briefly with the specific detriments, if we are wrong in our judgement on any of the remaining disclosures i.e. the remaining PID2 disclosure to Rhian Kinsella on 28 March 2023 and PID8 being protected disclosures, we were not persuaded that the Claimant had been subjected to any detriment on the ground that she had made a protected disclosure and the detriment complaints would be dismissed on that alternative basis as follows:413.4.1 We had been persuaded by the evidence of Rhian Kinsella for the reasons the Claimant had not been offered course leadership in January 2024. Any protected disclosure would not have had a material influence [§/93(a)];413.4.2 We were not persuaded on the facts that the Claimant had been suspended pending a dismissal process on 21 March 2024 and this complaint would have failed on that basis would have been dismissed on that alternative basis [§/93(b)];413.4.3 In relation to the claim that she had been subjected to an unfair dismissal process based on untrue and inaccurate information, namely the content of the interviews with Rhian Kinsella and Hayley Burns, we considered the Respondent’s submissions that this appeared to be a ‘flimsy and last-minute addition to the Claimant’s claim’ and noted that we had no submissions from the Claimant. We accepted that there had been no real challenge to the evidence of either witness to challenge the veracity of what they had said in the dismissal interviews for the complaint to have been proven on the facts. [§/93(c)];413.4.4 We repeat our conclusions on victimisation, in relation to the failure to properly deal with the Claimant’s grievance [§/93(d)];413.4.5 We did not conclude that allowing the same person to conduct the investigation into the Claimant’s grievance and simultaneously to amount to a detriment;413.4.6 In relation to the conduct of the investigation into the Claimant’s dismissal amounting to a detriment, as articulated within our victimisation reasoning and on that same basis, this complaint too would have failed [§/93(e)];413.4.7 We had not found that the Claimant had proven that the Respondent had isolated her from team activities and ostracised in the workplace from 21 March 2024. This complaint would have failed on its facts [§/93(f)].413.5 With regard to the detriments claim on the basis of PD10 and PD11 we would repeat our alternative conclusions in relation to the detriments at PD1-7. (9) Dismissal for making protected disclosures – s.47B ERA 1996 103A ERA 1996 [2§/27][414]The Claimant was dismissed on 10 July 2024. With regard to the reason or principal reason for dismissal, for a claim under s.103A ERA 1996, we have to ask ourselves whether the Claimant has shown that there is a real issue as to whether the reason put forward by Respondent (in this case some other substantial reason of a kind justifying dismissal) was not the true reason? If so, has the Respondent proved the reason for dismissal?[415]In this case, we had not been persuaded that the Claimant made any protected disclosure / disclosures as pleaded and in turn, we were persuaded on the evidence of the Respondent that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the breakdown in relationship between the employee and the Respondent, that amounted to a some other substantial reason, a potentially fair reason for dismissal (which we expand on in our conclusions on the unfair dismissal below).[416]On an alternative basis, if we were wrong in our judgement on the protected disclosures, we would have concluded that if the protected disclosures had played any part, they would have played no more than a trivial part.[417]We would repeat that the disclosures PID2 (save for 23 March 2023 to Rhian Kinsella) - PID7 were too historic to be more than a trivial influence over the dismissal process and eventual rationale to dismiss. The remaining disclosures were more contemporaneous and made to individual Faculty Manager as well as raised within the Dismissal Process and we sought to consider that if we were wrong on our view on protected disclosures, was there was anything behind the Respondent’s asserted reason, to assess the hidden motivation (Jhuti). We were satisfied that there was not.[418]As we have found that the Claimant had disclosed no information or facts that would compel the employer to investigate further, we concluded that any information that might have been found is intangible and it would not have been unreasonable for the employer to disregard them, or consider them no more than trivial when considering continued employment, for anything other than background evidence of an employee who was becoming difficult if not impossible to manage.[419]Whilst we accept that the chronology demonstrates that over several years, the Claimant repeatedly raised concerns regarding bullying and harassment, workplace culture, management practices, health and wellbeing, workload, rather articulate specific issues by way of formal grievance with information to enable the Respondent to investigate as she had repeatedly been asked and encouraged to do, the Claimant repeatedly made generalised allegations and relied on historic staff surveys which she considered supported her belief that all and any concerns were contemporaneously raised as public interest disclosures.[420]We concluded that Mark Milton, when making the decision to terminate the Claimant’s employment, did not consider any of the disclosures in detail, his dismissal letter relating to the breakdown in the relationship. Whilst the dismissal letter does refer to the disclosures in circumstances, where the employer had sought to get more information, several times in the 4 year period but failed to expand further, it was reasonable for the employer to consider that the Claimant was simply expressing an opinion.[421]Even in the Dismissal Hearings and through her 41+ page document she was given several opportunities to expand further and provide detail. She did not.[422]The reference that the Claimant did make to disclosures within her grievance and dismissal process is almost intangible and the Claimant’s representative was required to highlight where they could be found. It appeared that neither Mark Milton nor Debbie Jones gave any thought to whether the Claimant continued to make disclosures within her grievance or during the dismissal process.[423]The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed. (10) Unfair Dismissal – s.98 ERA 1996 [2§/29-41][424]We turn finally to the issue of ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996.[425]The Claimant submits that rather than addressing the Claimant’s concerns, bullying and harassment, workplace culture, management practices, health and wellbeing, workload and the operation of the Baseline Model, the Respondent progressively characterised the Claimant as the problem and ultimately dismissed her and we are invited to conclude that the asserted "breakdown in relationships" was the consequence of the Respondent's failure to resolve longstanding workplace issues, rather than an independent and sufficient reason for dismissal. The Claimant submits that the real reasons for her dismissal were a combination of the following:425.1 the giving of evidence in the grievances of Mrs Higgins and Mr Boulter;425.2 the making of a number of protected disclosures;425.3 her inability to always adhere to the Baseline Model;425.4 cost- cutting; and425.5 reducing number of high earners.[426]However, we repeat our conclusions on the victimisation complaints, whether her complaints were protected disclosures and indirect age discrimination complaints. These complaints were not well-founded and we do not conclude that these were the reasons or principal reasons factually for the Respondent dismissing the Claimant.[427]We sought to identify the facts or beliefs which genuinely operated on the mind of the decision-maker, Mark Milton, at the time of dismissal. We were satisfied, reflecting on the totality of the dismissal process and in particular his draft deliberations and letter of dismissal that the actual reason was the breakdown in the relationship, that the breakdown was genuine, substantial and the operative reason for dismissal.[428]Whilst the Claimant raising concerns on a general basis and repeatedly, was a factor in the decision to termination, we would repeat that where the employer sought to get more information - several times in the 4 year period, and the Claimant failed to expand further despite requests for her to put in detail by way of a formal grievance, it is reasonable for the employer to consider that the Claimant was simply expressing an opinion and it is reasonable for the employer to disregard them when considering continued employment, for anything other than background evidence of an employee who was becoming difficult if not impossible to manage.[429]We were not persuaded ‘breakdown in relationship’/’SOSR’ was a label that masked another reason, although we were cautious initially in reviewing whether employer had, in not engaging in formal capability or disciplinary processes, sought to short-circuit those processes. We concluded that they had not.[430]We were satisfied that ultimately the real reason for the dismissal was given in the letter of dismissal, namely:430.1 Similar complaints being received from the Claimant against three separate and consecutive line managers;430.2 When attempts are made to discuss the Claimant’s performance, the Claimant had placed barriers such as requesting trade union attendance to normal management meetings;430.3 The threat of grievances, verbalisation of complaints and dissatisfaction with colleagues undermining of management’s attempts to make improvements to the work environment; and ultimately430.4 within the Dismissal Process, refusing to return to work unless her manager were disciplined and/or that she didn’t report to them.[431]In relation to whether the Respondent’s decision to dismiss fair in all the circumstances and the questions of whether the Respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief and had they carried out a reasonable investigation, the Claimant relies upon the 18 grounds to challenge the fairness of the dismissal the alleged defects within her Second Claim (2§/32(a) to (r) [132]].). We respond in brief:a. The employer has failed to provide substantial evidence to corroborate claims that they Claimant had displayed negative behaviours. We deal with a) and e) together. Whilst the Tribunal were not taken to all the documents that were available to Mark Milton in reaching the decision, we were satisfied that he considered the Claimant’s responses to Rhian Kinsella’s concerns and it was a reasonable response to place reliance on the evidence of senior managers in the organisation, including the Deputy Dean. Whilst the Tribunal were not taken to all the documents that were available to Mark Milton in reaching the decision, we were satisfied that he considered the Claimant’s responses to Rhian Kinsella’s concerns and was entitled to place reliance on the evidence of senior managers in the organisation including the Deputy Dean.b. On the 12/04/2024, I provided the Respondent with a 40+ page document, with hard evidence attached and names of witnesses to approach to substantiate and corroborate my claims. At no time during the dismissal process have the Respondent’s informed me of the outcome of the allegations against me or whether my evidence has supported my claims. We deal with b) and d) together. We had found that Mark Milton had addressed the Claimant’s 40+ document and a reasonable response was to delegate to Zoe Grainger the task of assessing whether any claims raised by the Claimant within that document had been addressed. The evidence before him from the HR Director was that they had been save for the outstanding matters that were addressed within the Dismissal letter sent on 12 July 2024. In relation to the ‘allegations’ we were satisfied that the purpose of the Dismissal Process was not to investigate ‘allegations’ other than the relationship issue and no substantive findings were made on performance issues or conduct issues relating to the Claimant. Rather the review was on the Claimant’s response to her manager seeking to deal with those issues. Likewise, Mark Milton only investigated the Grievance as the complaints pertained to the Claimant and did deal with those in the Dismissal Letter which also deal with the Claimant’s outstanding grievances.c. No witnesses that I have included my grievance, my 40+ page document, during the dismissal hearings or during the appeal hearing, have been approached to give evidence to support my claims. We did not consider that failure to do so fell outside what would be a reasonable response, taking into account the nature of the allegation which was the breakdown between the Claimant and management with the team.d. I had requested on several occasions that all allegations against me, be fully investigated and I have requested an outcome report that investigates each allegation and provides the findings for each. My requests have been ignored. We would repeat our conclusions at b)e. The Respondent has provided no hard evidence to suggest that my colleagues and I have had a strained and unprofessional working relationship, and furthermore, I have been provided no hard evidence that substantiates the claims regarding my inability to perform my role as a senior lecturer, course leader or module leader. To the contrary, I have received much praise and recognition from my fellow colleagues and students over the course of my employment at USW and as a senior lecturer. See a)f. If my behaviour has been so serious a concern that it warrants my dismissal, I question why this has not been brought to my attention in the past, via appraisals, disciplinary action or any other means of informally or formally expressing these concerns. The first I heard about these allegations was after reading the information contained within the email, which I received on the 21/03/2024, which included an invite to a meeting which would be held under the University's dismissal procedure. We deal with f) g) and k) together and concluded that neither capability nor disciplinary were the appropriate procedures where the allegation concerned behaviour towards management and relationship breakdown. Further, we concluded that the Claimant was likely aware of previous concerns. The Dismissal Process was not to consider conduct or performance allegations per se but management concerns regarding the Claimant’s response to management when they sought to address conduct or performance issues.g. While SOSR is an often a fair reason to dismiss an employee, it is deemed inappropriate for employers to rely on SOSR to circumvent a longer process, such as capability and conduct issues. I don't accept that SOSR was the true reason for my dismissal and the Respondent should have followed their own policies and ACAS Code of Practice and looked to follow more suitable options in the first instance, i.e., Work Performance Management, Capability Policy, Disciplinary Policy, etc. We repeat our conclusions on the reason for dismissal and e) above.h. The Employer has several implied obligations to its employees, which includes a duty to exercise care, treat employees with respect, provided a reasonably suitable workplace environment and to deal with employee grievances both promptly and appropriately. I have reasonable belief that the Respondent is in breach of these implied terms, which has resulted in detriment to me and other staff, and in some cases, it has negatively impacted the health and safety of its staff and the students, and the teaching and learning experience. We concluded that this was not a challenge to fairness that could be reasonably taken into account when determining the fairness of the dismissal.i. In the past, I've made several qualifying disclosures to all levels of management, which were made in the interest of my colleagues, the students and the public. My disclosures relate to the toxic workplace environment, which has rendered the workplace disorderly, unprofessional, unfit for purpose and dangerous. The disclosures I have made in the past relate to my concerns for the health and safety of staff and students, which I reasonably believed to be at danger; and my disclosures were made overall for the good of the forensic science department and the science subject disciplines. I believe, as the consequences of making these protected disclosures, I have suffered detriment, which has resulted in my dismissal. This is contrary to s. 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. We repeat our conclusions in relation to both the protected disclosures, protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal complaint.j. On the 21/03/22024, after requesting a return to the workplace after a month’s sick leave, I received two emails. The first email was a request to attend a meeting on the 25/03/2024, to discuss my suspension, the second email was a request to attend a meeting on the 27/03/2024 to discuss my dismissal. I was not provided the recommended 5 working days’ notice, which is deemed reasonable in these circumstances. This has not been presented as a grounds during these proceedings. In any event, the Claimant did not attend any such meeting until 4 April 2024.k. Attached to the latter correspondence was a series of many poorly presented allegations, based on untrue and inaccurate information. Since the initial dismissal hearing on the 03/04/2024, I do not believe that a fair and just investigation has been undertaken, and after my dismissal on the 10/07/2024, the allegations set against me have been left unresolved, despite my submission of a 45-page document with substantial evidence negating most of these allegations. See f) above.l. With regards to my grievance, which was submitted on the 25/03/2024, the Respondent has failed to deal with my grievance in a timely and appropriate manner. On the 14/05/2024, I requested an update regarding the progression of my grievance but received no reply. On the 22/05/2024, I requested another update on my grievance, but again, I received no information relating to my query regarding the grievance. The Claimant was aware that her grievance was being dealt with concurrently with the Dismissal Process and concluded that it was dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Whilst the Claimant did request updates on her grievance, she had and took the opportunity to provide all the evidence that she sought to rely on within her 41+ page document in which she embedded additional information. She was also provided with additional time after the meeting in July to provide further information and did not do so.m. After receiving an invite on the 04/06/2024 to attend a dismissal hearing scheduled for the 13/06/2024, I sent an email on the 12/06/2024 to request more information regarding the meeting's agenda. At 16:37 on the 12/06/2024, I was informed that the meeting would be addressing my grievance”. This provided me no time to prepare to answer questions relating to my grievance. Taking into account the Claimant was represented throughout the Dismissal process by her union representative and that during the meeting the Claimant was offered further time following the meeting to provide further submissions in respect of her grievance and did not do so, this did not lead to unfairness in the dismissal.n. It is often the case that when a disciplinary procedure is running concurrently with a submitted grievance, the dismissal process is paused, to allow the grievance to be processed. While I'm aware that USW's Grievance Policy does not guarantee this course of action will be taken, it was at my detriment that the dismissal process was progressed as a matter of priority. We deal with these two issues n) and o) together. The ACAS Code of Practice (§46) provides that where grievance and disciplinary cases are related it may be appropriate to deal with both issues concurrently. We concluded that to do so in this case was a reasonable response.o. Furthermore, I have stressed to the Respondent my concerns regarding impartiality and fairness regarding the same persons processing both my dismissal hearings and my grievance. My concerns were ignored. See n).p. It is my belief that the allegations set against me have been vexatious, malicious and frivolous in nature, with the intention to bring about my dismissal. I have provided evidence to the Respondent to prove that the vast majority of the allegations set against were false. I’ve also proven that some allegations have been twisted to no longer represent the true incident, and furthermore, I have shown that collusion is clearly evident between several staff members, and the allegations against me relate to incidents that date back over 8 years The Tribunal was taken to the statements of Hayley Burns and Rhian Kinsella and both were interviewed as part of the Dismissal process by Zoe Grainger, HR Director. Both witnesses were subject to cross-examination during the hearing. Mark Milton was reasonably entitled to place weight on their evidence when determining whether the relationship had irretrievably broken down.q. A grievance was submitted against me in July 2024, which the Respondent made me aware of at my dismissal hearing on the 10/07/2024. After requesting an SAR on the 17/07/2024 to gain access to the grievance, I finally received it on the 30/11/2024. It is poorly written and heavily redacted. I could not see the author’s name or the date of submission, but it was evident that it was submitted by Cara Latcham (Technical Demonstrator), and its content was heavily loaded with falsehoods and exaggerations. This grievance has been submitted for the sole purpose to support allegations against me and to support the Respondent in bring about the decision to dismissal me. The grievance was submitted whilst I had been on a 5-months leave of sick absence, and it was vexatious, malicious and frivolous in nature. We had accepted the evidence from the Respondent that the grievance from the Technician was not considered as part of the Dismissal process and played no part in the reason to dismiss. The rationale was that to include this within the process would add undue stress for the Claimant. A decision was made not to include that grievance as part of the investigation into the Claimant. Whilst at first blush it appeared that it would have been more reasonable to undertake an investigation into her concerns in conjunction with the Claimant’s responses, to understand objectively what was the issue between the academics and technicians and particularly, this technician and the Claimant, the Respondent’s evidence was that it was decided not to investigate for fear of overwhelming the Claimant and we accepted that Mark Milton neither saw the grievance nor took it into account when making his decision. That was a reasonable response.r. With regards to the investigation conducted over the past 6 months, I strongly believe that it has lacked a robust and objective approach, which has also played a significant role in the decision to dismiss me after 10 years as a USW employee. Whilst the Claimant was an employee with substantial continuity of employment with the Respondent, we were satisfied that Mark Milton was of sufficient seniority and impartiality to determine the Claimant’s employment. Likewise, Debbie Jones as Lay-Governor[432]We do not conclude that the asserted "breakdown in relationships" was the consequence of the Respondent's failure to resolve longstanding workplace issues, rather than an independent and sufficient reason for dismissal.[433]Whilst we accept that performance issues (such as student complaints and failure to comply with the Baseline Model) and conduct concerns (such as historic concerns regarding her conduct at NSS and Faculty meetings) did form a background to the Dismissal Process and indeed Dismissal Letter, the working relationships and the Claimant's inability to return successfully to the workplace were at the heart of the reasons to dismiss. We also concluded that whilst the Claimant's complaints about workplace culture and management did form part of that decision, it was not about the fact or content of any complaint from the Claimant, but rather the fact that despite being asked for further information for the management to respond, and encouraged to do so repeatedly, she failed to provide any information to enable the management to take any matter move forward by way of resolution.[434]We do not find support for the proposition that the Respondent investigated whether the Claimant should remain employed without first properly investigating whether her own complaints about management and workplace culture. We would repeat that we found that the two processes were undertaken concurrently albeit we accept that the first two dismissal meetings focussed on the management consideration of dismissal and not on the Claimant’s own grievances but we were satisfied that throughout the overall process, over the course of three meetings conducted over a number of months, the Claimant had considerable opportunity to provide evidential support for her grievances, and for those that were outstanding, we considered that Mark Milton’s response, in how he dealt with the information provided by the Claimant, was a reasonable one.[435]We were satisfied that the Respondent's had investigated the Claimant's outstanding concerns independently, had explored mediation, which the Claimant had refused, and considered alternative management arrangements, which were not practicable and genuinely regarded dismissal as a last resort. We accept that the repeated adjournments of the dismissal meetings in April, May and June 2024 does suggest there was an ongoing opportunity to consider alternatives and the content of the discussion within the evidence before us, including further discussions between Mark Milton and Rhina Kinsella regarding Matrix management as well as such discussions with the Claimant and her representative, demonstrated that to the Tribunal that there was a meaningful evaluation of alternative options such as mediation, changes to reporting lines, or redeployment.[436]We had no evidence to support the proposition that the Respondent failed to take into account the fact that the Claimant was a long-serving employee with over ten years' service and that other employees shared her ongoing concerns.[437]We therefore concluded that:437.1 Mark Milton conducted an investigation that was reasonable in the circumstances of the case;437.2 the procedure that was adopted was reasonable affording the Claimant considerable opportunity to articulate her grievances and respond to concerns regarding relationship breakdown including an opportunity to appeal, which we also considered was a reasonable appeal;437.3 We did not conclude that reasonable alternatives were not properly explored. Rather, mediation and alternative line management was considered and it was a reasonable response to conclude that this would not be workable.[438]In the circumstances, we considered that a conclusion by Mark Milton that there was an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship did not fall outside the range of reasonable responses.[439]The complaint of unfair dismissal is also therefore not well-founded and is dismissed. Time[440]Finally and very briefly, we considered jurisdiction which, as the parties concede, has not been a significant issue in this claim. All the complaints were in time save for the one detriment complaint regarding the Claimant’s workload in January 2025. We accept that it was capable of forming a continuing course of treatment albeit the complaints were not well-founded but in any event, if that is wrong, time would have been extended under the just and equitable principles taking into account the minimal delay and factual matrix argued by the Claimant, but predominantly lack of practical hardship with the Respondent.