Employment Judge HeatherIn person for claimantMs Millns (instructed by Counsel) for respondentMiss C Millns (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 6 February 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s claim for Automatically Unfair Dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]This is a claim by the claimant in relation to the termination of her employment with the Respondent. She was employed as a Support Co-Ordinator between 5 th February 2024 and 10th April 2024. She makes a claim under section 103 Employment Rights Act 1996, that her dismissal was automatically unfair Dismissal because she made a Protected Disclosure under section 43B of the Act.[2]I had before a bundle of documents including minutes of meetings, emails, and photographs. I heard evidence from, the Claimant, Miss B Conway, Client Service Manager the claimant’s line manager; Mrs. C Nafeti, Client Mrs. S Allen, Client Services Manager and Line Manger of Rs Conway and Mrs. Nafeti; and Miss Newman, at the time of the relevant Events she was the Operations Manager Manger with Oversight of the that part of the business the claimant worked within and line manager of Mrs. Allan.[3]At the commencement of the hearing an issue arose in relation to recordings the claimant had made of meetings or conversations she had had with various people. EJ Morris at the Preliminary hearing on 8th August 2024 had ordered the claimant to transcribe the recordings and send them to the respondent. The claimant sent the respondent a document of bullet points from the recording, The respondent rejected this and the claimant did not pursue it further. Today, she asked me to listen to the tapes, the respondent objects.[4]In looking at this issue I considered the relevance of the recordings. This case is about Whistleblowing, of the two recordings one is of the claimant discussing the care of a customer, the UNISUS complaint, the second a meeting she had with Ms. Conway. The claimant wishes to rely upon them to prove that she had done nothing wrong and to establish that the respondent did not record the meetings correctly. I reminded myself that the main issue in this case is ‘what was the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal’. In determining this matter, I must look at what was in the mind of Miss Conway when she dismissed the claimant. It does not matter whether the claimant HAD committed misconduct, it was Ms. Conways belief in misconduct that I considered relevant for the purpose of this claim. For the purposes of whistleblowing, it does not matter if the act complained of in the disclosure actually occurred but whether the employee had a reasonable belief that it had. In such circumstances the recordings have no relevance to the issues of belief or the question was the claimant dismissed because of her disclosure.[5]Further, the respondent has not yet seen a transcription, I would therefore either have to adjourn for a transcript to be produced and checked or allow time for the respondent to listen to the tape. In the absence of a full transcript, it would also be necessary for me to listen to the tape. I did not consider such a course of action was in accordance with the overriding objective to deal with case in a proportionate way according to the issues in the case. I determined that the tapes should not be admitted into evidence.[6]In addition, the claimant wished to adduce evidence of a draft email which she states would be saved on the respondents server; the respondent maintains it is unable to find it. In any event, the respondent does not challenge that the claimant was in the middle of drafting an email or that it had attachments to it. The attachments are photos in relation to her complaints. I repeat what I said above, it does not matter for the purpose of a whistleblowing claim, whether the conduct occurred or not, but whether the claimant had a reasonable belief in it, this is not challenged.[7]A further preliminary issue was the claimant’s witness statement which is very short and it does not set out in the detail expected, of the claimants case. Rather a brief it is a brief document dated 4th December 2024 it consists of a brief outline of her case. An example, is she raised concerns with adequate training, inappropriate comments, inadequate home repairs, what she does not say is on 28th and 31st of March 2024 she sent to an email the respondent which she considered to be covered by the whistleblowing provisions of the employment law. She she also says she raised them with CQC. There is nothing within the statement which could be considered as dealing with the issue in case which is why the claimant was dismissed, in particular why she maintains it was her disclosure and not her conduct which led to the dismissal.[8]Counsel for the respondent Miss Mills indicated that she could be tempted simply not to cross-examine as the statement is lacking in detail. however she did indicate she would be cross examining the claimant. I did raise the witness statement with the claimant and specifically took her to Employment Judge Morris’s orders from 4th August 2024 which at paragraph 21 reads ‘the witness statement is a document containing everything relevant witness can tell the tribunal witnesses will not be allowed add to their statement unless the tribunal agrees.’ The claimant said she had not received this before she sent the email with her witness statement. I don’t accept that because these orders were sent to the parties on 13 August 2024 by email, the claimant has not given any indication that her email account is in the newly compromised. The issues in the case were set out by Judge Morris in the same order.
THE ISSUES
[9]the issues were set out in the same order of Judge Morris at paragraph 44 The claimant relies upon the following disclosures. 9.1The claimant’s email on sent at 10:31on 28th of March 2024 to Bonny Cowan, Sarah Allen, and Catherine Nafeti of the respondent with information about conflict in the team, the services/support received by customers (including whether this included emptying a customer’s catheter) and her role at the respondent. 9.2 The claimant’s email sent 20:54 30th of March 2024 to the same people and also Mark Henderson Sarah Newman and Jaya sample. With information about the care received by and safeguarding of customers, the standard of accommodation, issues with colleagues and workplace and recruitment practices. This email was a redrafting of the draft email of 29th March, which is referred to above 9.3The claimant’s concerns that she raised with the CQC on 2 nd,7th , and 12th of April 2024 by speaking to Officers; and she had sent emails to that body on the 7th and 12th of April 2024 9.4It is accepted by the respondent that Ms. Cowan in particular was aware of the emails at the time she dismissed the claimant. 9.5It is further accepted by the respondent that the emails in 1 and 2 contain information which would amount to a protected disclosure for the purpose of these proceedings. 9.6The respondent also accepts that the claimant’s belief about the matters of which she complains are reasonable. 9.7It is also accepted by the respondent that tended to show that a person is failing or likely to fail to comply with a legal obligation under and also the health and safety of any individual being endangered for the purpose of section 43B of the Act 9.8The respondent has therefore accepted that part of the information on the emails would amount to a protected disclosure for the purposes of considering a claim under section 103A The Employment Rights Act 1996 namely an Automatically Unfair Dismissal because the claimant made a protected disclosure. 9.9Therefore, the only matter which I have to determine today what was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal and whether the reason or principal reason was that the claimant made protected disclosures on the 28th and 30th of March 2024 9.10 As to the disclosure to the CQC the respondent does not admit knowing the contents of any correspondence to the CQC the height of the claimant’s case is that they were aware of a threat to the CQC. 9.11 In essence Cs case appears to be that as she believes she did nothing wrong she can only think she was dismissed because of raising the complaints in her emails.
THE FACTS
[10]The issue in this case is a very narrow one, I have not made any determinations in relation to the claimants behaviour, of any concerns that she raised or whether or not she would have been employed in relation to her DBS check i.e. the revelation that she had been convicted of robbery when she was a youth, aged 13. Where the is a conflict of evidence I have at times, been assisted by contemporaneous notes.[11]The respondent provides a service to vulnerable people; this is broken down into a number of different services including the provision of housing. The part of the business where the claimant worked was to support customers with their care plans; this might include shopping, taking them to the appointments, helping them with financial planning and budgets according to a care plan which had been agreed.[12]The claimant applied for a position via an online service I have not had sight of the application. However, at an interview on 8th January 2024 the claimant was frank with her potential employers indicating that she had been unable to work for long time because she care of her daughter. Both Ms. Cowan and Ms. Naferti considered her to be an excellent candidate and offered the claimant the role.[13]Having been offered the position the claimant sent a copy of a contract setting out a number of matters; including a 6 month probation The section reads ‘for your first six months of employment you be on probation and we’ll (sic) be reviewing your performance and suitability for the role. During this time, we can end your employment with one week’s prior notice and you can end yours with one months’ notice. If we think there are issues that means we need to extend your probationary period will talk to you about this and could extended by up to 3 months.’ The contract also indicates that there will be enhanced disclosure check through the Disclosure Barring Service’[14]The probation policy reads, ‘For every new colleague working through their six-month probation, A probation review meeting will be scheduled by their manager. More often than not those conversations are positive and conclude that the probation period is completed to a satisfactory level.[15]It goes on ‘Whilst all probation periods are six months duration and generally the review meeting will happen at some point in month five, this meeting could be held at any point first six months if there are issues that are significant.’[16]The respondent’s policy includes this concerning convictions “Criminal offences will not be treated as automatic reasons for dismissal the main consideration will be whether the offence makes the individual unsuitable for their type of work. In turn Home Group may need to consider the fact is to whether the conduct is sufficiently serious to warrant invoking the disciplinary process”. On the evidence I heard from the respondent the mere fact of a conviction does not automatically rule a person out from a position within the respondents business. If DBS check throws up a conviction the respondent will carry out a review and a risk assessment to determine if the person should still be offered employment.[17]The claimant commenced her employment on 5 February 2024 prior to commencing she contacted the respondents because her DBS check had not been concluded. The respondent was unconcerned indicating the claimant would work alongside another person, who had had their check until such time as it was received; they refer to this as doubling up. In addition, she would also have e-learning and an induction to complete before she took on any substantive duties.[18]Ms. Cowan and Miss Nafeti were the claimant’s line managers. Ms. Cowan managed the team to which the claimant was attached; the other members of the team were Kelvin, Gillian, Faye, Demi and Katie. Prior to the arrival of the claimant, it is clear this team worked effectively with each other except for the usual niggles which one would expect to find workplace but there was nothing of a serious nature.[19]Ms. Cowan was an experienced manager she had undertaken training and showed during her evidence an understanding of the relationships of working people especially those working in a highly sensitive service. Some of the phrases she used which were new to me clearly showed this understanding.[20]As Ms. Cowan was the claimant’s direct line manager it was up to her to ensure that the claimant was working effectively throughout her employment. The way in which Ms. Cowan decided to do this was, If she became aware of an issue she did not necessarily confront an employee about it, for example on one occasion as she decided that the best way to ensure her team worked effectively was to carry out teambuilding exercises. She did this on one occasion on 23rd February 2024.[21]Using this approach Ms. Cowan received a complaint from another team member on 14th February 2024. I will refer to this as the Linskill incident. I do not propose to rehearse the facts, but as a result of what occurred Ms. Cowan spoke to the claimant on 19th February 2024. Ms. Cowan’s only concern was to ensure her team was working together. She was not interested in who was to blame, but to some extent she did and this applies throughout proceedings, accept what her long-standing staff have told her over and above the claim- ant. I consider this to be reasonable because she has an understanding of them and how they work, and their honesty and integrity having been their line manager for some time.[22]There was another incident of concern when the claimant overheard a conversation between Ms. Cowan and another team member. The issue was not that she overheard the conversation but that she reported it back to other staff members.[23]Ms. Cowan was also concerned that during a catch up the claimant raised an issue about colleagues’ capability, specifically that she may have a learning disability.[24]Ms. Cowan’s hope was that the claimant would ‘find her place in the team and move forward positively as I still believed she would be great in her role with customers.’ Ms. Cowan held a teambuilding event this was not specifically aimed at the claimant but was to try and overcome any issues each of the team members had with the other.[25]Further concerns were raised on 22nd February 2024 by two staff members about the claimant offering vape oil to a client.[26]On 26th March 2024 the respondent was told that the claimants DBS check was not a clear pass. Whilst the respondent had been aware that the claimant was pending a court hearing for road traffic offences, the DBS check revealed that the claimant had been convicted of robbery when she was 13 years of age. As a result, on 27th March 2024 Ms. Cowan spoke to the claimant and informed her she would need to bring DBS certificate to bring the certificate into the office.[27]On the same day Ms. Cowan received an email of complaint about the claimant from third party who provided care to some of the respondents customers, the Unisisus complaint. I do not need to rehearse the details of the complaint.[28]Ms. Cowan discussed the complaint with Miss Nafeti and they concluded that action would have to be taken about the complaint.[29]On 27th March 2024 the claimant expressed her opinion in relation to the age of staff assisting a customer. She did not intend this to be a criticism, rather that the customer may be more receptive to older support workers[30]On 28th March 2024 the claimant sent an email timed at 10:31 AM the object line read ‘transfer or notice.’ The claimant made it clear that what she wanted was “due to a lot of self confusing (sic) of how we operate as a team and conflict which is being directed to myself in regards to working with the team. I feel it is need I request either a transfer or I terminate my employment with home group based on current factors”[31]In a lengthy document the claimant then sets out a number of issues which I do not feel the need to rehearse as the respondent accepts this email amounts to a disclosure for the purpose of the Act and also because some of them contain personal matters of customers. Having read the email it is clear that the claimant is trying to raise matters of concern which could impact upon the health and safety of customers and also the legal responsibilities that the respondent had to abide by.[32]Miss Nafeti, in the absence of Ms. Cowan contacted the claimant to discuss the email; her particular concern was the claimant’s desire to resign or transfer. Ms. Nafeti was already aware of the issues Ms. Cowan had raised with the claimant and prior to contacting the claimant Ms Nafeti spoke to Miss Cowan and HR Department. The HR department advised that the claimant could not be redeployed to because she was still in her probation; Ms. Nafeti was advised to invite the claimant to reconsider her resignation over the long weekend.[33]Miss Nafeti did speak to the claimant and explained the position and advised her to reconsider her position over the weekend.[34]On 29th of March the claimant was present in the office with another team member, she was drafting an email of her concerns. I am satisfied that the claimant said to the other team member that she was drafting email to Mark Henderson about concerns in the service and that if the CQC got involved they would all lose their jobs, and this would reflect on them all and follow them around.[35]It is clear that whatever was said was interpreted by the staff member as being directed towards her alone she became very upset and contacted Ms. Cowan via text message, ‘I know you’re not going to get the message, but Kirsty [the claimant] is saying she’s going to Mark Henderson and saying we’ve been neglecting the clients and that I’m going to get sacked for neglecting the customers, now I’m panicking”.[36]Having received that message and although on annual leave Ms. Cowan contacted the staff member for further discussion. Ms. Cowan emailed HR to keep them in the loop. Ms. Nafeti, who was also aware of the conversation spoke to Ms. Cowan. I am satisfied that the claimant was invited to leave the office, I am satisfied that she would be upset as a result of a further complaint about behaviour, I am also satisfied that she was in no fit state to continue to do her work effectively supporting other vulnerable people. She was asked to leave her equipment, and I accept that this was done because at this point, she was working her notice and was not expected to be back on shift before her notice period expired.[37]The next day, 30th of March, the claimant sent a second email at 8:54 PM as set out above this email also went to Mark Henderson. She starts the email as follows “as I started my role in support coordinator within North Tyneside Step I was proud to be part of the home group values and to be given the opportunity to do the role I had thought about for such a long time.’ She then sets out a number of concerns many of which she has previously raised in the earlier email. She concludes the email as follows “Home Group does have wonderful work values and ethic and I would have been a valued employee and made good use of the grow your own opportunity. It is a shame when em- ployees speak out and offer the extra mile and express concerns they are pushed out of the company. I would have made a difference and outstanding progress with all” It is accepted this email without going into the details information which would amount to a disclosure for the purposes of Section 43B The Employment Rights Act therefore I do not need to rehearse the information in public because some of them are sensitive and relate to customers and service that they received.[38]One of the complaints that the claimant made was about behaviour towards herself “I was told I am a ‘Storming Norman’ and I will find my place within the team” Miss Cowan accepts that she said this and in evidence said this is a recognised model when looking at employment placements. In effect what it means is that when a new person comes into team it can be difficult for them to become part of the team but eventually everything levels out and they are accepted, Ms. Cowan had hoped that this is what would happen here.[39]I accept that the claimant called the Care Quality Commission on 2nd April 2024 and then on 7th April 2024 to file a formal complaint because I have seen the acceptance email from CQC. I also accept that she contacted them again on 8th April 2024 explaining the nature of the service in which she was employed. I accepted that on 15th April 2024 the claimant contacted the CQC and attached to that email a copy of the email raising her concerns to the respondent.[40]In relation to the CQC therefore I am not able to determine what information was passed by the claimant on the 2 nd and 7th of April 2024 whether that be by verbal communication or email.[41]The final email on 15th April 2024 contained the information which was already in the possession of the respondents. This information is accepted as a Disclosure by the respondent.[42]On 4th April 2024 Miss Newman contacted the claimant to discuss the concerns she had raised in her email. At this point the respondent still believed the claimant was resigning. During a further call between the two on 5th April 2024 the claimant to indicate she wanted to rescind her resignation. This was accepted and Miss Newman informed Ms. Cowan and Ms. Allen.[43]Ms. Newman considered the matters raised by the claimant to be potentially serious failings, and as a result she commenced her own investigation. She did not find ‘a single piece of correlating evidence to support the claimant. An outcome letter was sent to the claimant on 15th April 2024 to that effect.[44]In relation to the Unisus Complaint, Miss Allan was appointed to hold a factfinding. I am satisfied that this meeting was held in accordance with the respondents disciplinary procedure which reads, ‘Gathering Facts “conduct related incidents might arise through various channels; line manager may have observed; a complaint or piece of feedback might come from another person; or it may be something that tells that the colleague tells you about. However, we become aware of an issue the first thing we should do is to quickly assess the potential risks on face value so that we can consider necessary action.” “The best place to start is a discussion colleague. The line manager will nor- mally be expected to do this, unless they were somehow involved, implicated or if they are absent from work. We should be upfront about the situation and make sure the colleague feels able to respond share their perception of events it is a reasonable if the reselection nation by the colleague is given any further fact-finding being not necessary.”[45]The claimant was invited to a fact-finding meeting on 9th April 2025. Miss Allen went through the allegation from Unisus, she then discussed the 28th March 2024 incident involving Katie, she then explored concerns that had been raised that she was making that is to say the claimant was making untrue allegations about other staff. This included a discussion of the Linskill complaint.[46]Finally, Ms Allen asked to see the claimant DBS certificate, I’m satisfied that Miss Allen was able to see the document although it wasn’t physically handed to her. This was the first time that the respondent became aware of the claimant’s conviction for robbery. The claimant gave an explanation to Miss Allen of the events and that she was given a conditional discharge for her part in the incident. This was confirmed by the DBS certificate. When asked why she hadn’t shared it earlier the claimant indicated that there were a number of reasons which revolved around personal issues in her own life at time of the incident and she had simply forgotten about it. The meeting concluded with Miss Allen saying she was going to share the information with HR and that the claimant would be further contacted.[47]It is clear that the meeting which was held by Ms. Allen was a fact-finding meeting. It is good industrial practice to call a person into a meeting to discuss their initial reactions to any complaint against them. It is only when the complaint is proceeded to disciplinary that all the evidence will then be disclosed to an employee this was required here because the claimant was dismissed under the probationary review clauses.[48]Following the meeting Ms. Allen had a conversation with Miss Cowan and Ms. Nafeti and HR; the consensus of opinion was that because the claimant had caused numerous problems within the team which she had been spoken about on a number of occasions, plus a complaint from a third party, Unisus and the lack of remorse and that any suggestion or assurance that she would change her behavior had not been forthcoming. It was felt that the claimant’s employment was likely to be terminated of a probationary review meeting was held. I am satisfied that the claimant’s conduct significant enough to justify an early probation review ‘[49]Ms. Cowan held a probation review meeting with the claimant on 10th April 2024.She discussed with the claimant the issues of concern raised at the fact finding meeting plus the DBS. During the meeting the claimant indicated that she had recorded every conversation on a voice recorder including the fact-finding meeting and the conversation with the carers, the Unisus, complaint. She tried to justify this, but it is contrary to the respondent’s policies. Ms. Cowan, having listened to the claimant, formed the view that the claimant had breached the Home Group policies and had an unsatisfactory DBS which included a conviction she had not disclosed and therefore her probation would be terminated.[50]This was confirmed in writing on 18th April 2024, Ms. Cowan stated in her letter the reason for terminations was, ‘Although you stated you had not behaved in an unprofessional manner whilst representing homegroup, we had statements from an external provider, another home group staff member that was a witness and comments made to another colleague which I have deemed to be unprofessional and inappropriate on the workplace and could cause reputational damage. You have caused distress to colleagues by behaving in a way that does not live up to home group’s valued behaviors. The Law Public Interest Disclosures
The Law
[51]Section 43 B Employment Rights Act 1996 ‘ In this part a ‘qualifying disclosure’ means any disclosure of information which in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the followingThat a criminal offence has been committed is being committed or is likely to be committed That a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject.[52]The worker must impart information. That is:- ‘ sufficient factual content and specificity such as is capable of tending to show one of the matters listed in the subsection. Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436.[53]The worker does not have to show that the wrongdoing actually occurred but ‘reasonably believes it tends to show that is the case.’ Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohammed [2017] EWCA Civ 979.[54]If the worker honestly believes that the information tends to show wrongdoing and objectively viewed it has sufficient factual detail to be capable of doing so it is very likely the belief will be reasonable’ Automatically unfair Dismissal[55]Section 103 A Employment Rights Act 1996 An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismisses if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.[56]Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw [2014] ICR 540. It is possible to consider the combined effect of more than one disclosure to determine the question of whether the dismissal was because of the disclosur.[57]Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530.The Tribunal must determine the reason or the principal reason for the dismissal. The employer must show the reason for the dismissal. It is open to the Tribunal to reject both an em- ployer and an employees stated reason for a dismissal and determine the true reason for was not advance by either side.[58]Fecitt v NHS Manchester 2011 EWCA Civ 1190 Unlike a detriment case when considering an automatically unfair dismissal the Tribunal must ask itself what was the reason, or if more than one reason the principal reason for the dismissal.
Conclusions
[59]I am satisfied Ms. Cowan and the rest of the management team had concerns about the claimant’s ability to work within the team. I asked myself, Having received a number of complaints, Did the respondents management team put their head together in order to remove the claimant from her job because of her disclosures, or did Ms. Cowan do that independently of others, or was the claimant’s behaviour causing discord amongst the team and in breach of Homegroup principles?. Ms. Cowan concluded that it was the claimants behaviour, and it appears unlikely on the evidence I have heard that there was a conspiracy afoot to get rid of the claimant from her job.[60]Ms. Cowan’s description of the claimant as a storming Norman which may appear at first to be a complaint, is in fact a recognised model and used by managers to describe a person who comes into a team and perhaps unwittingly upsets the dynamics of the team, but usually things settled down and they become part of the team. It appears clear to me exactly what happened here. Having said that, I am satisfied that at times the claimant may have appeared arrogant to her co-workers. Some of the matters which she raised, for example offering training to another team member, suggests to me that she considered herself in some respect to be better able to do the job than others.[61]Many questions were asked of the respondents witnesses about the way in which things were handled, which may have been appropriate in an unfair dismissal claim, but unfortunately the claimant has no such rights at this time. And whilst it is expected that an employer will act in a reasonable manner, any procedural failings which the claimant perceives to have happened are not relevant for the purposes of the claim, unless the claimant is attempting to establish that the procedural failings were deliberate to ensure the claimant the claimant was dismissed.[62]I have to consider whether the claimant has established that the respondent dismissed her either because of the email she sent to them all the contact she made with the CQC see or whether in fact it was her failure of the probationary review.[63]Turning to the CQC’s first I am not satisfied on the evidence I have before me the claimant disclosed information for the purposes of being a protected disclosure to the CQC on 2nd and 7th April. I accept that her email to CQC on the 15th of April the claimant disclosed information. However, that occurs after her dismissal. The claims for automatically unfair dismissal because of any disclosures to CQC fail.[64]That leaves me with the question of the respondents response to the claimants because of emails. On 28th and 30th March 2024. In coming to my decision, I have looked at the response from Mrs. Newman. Having heard from Mrs. Newman she was an articulate and eloquent witness clearly deeply concerned about the matters raised by the claimant to the extent that she conducted a thorough review of all of the matters including seeking the opinion of third parties. This is not the response of an employer who is aggrieved by an employee’s concerns, to the extent that they would dismiss.[65]I also take account of the fact that having received the response from Mrs. Newman the claimant takes no further action, she simply responds by thanking Mrs. Newman for looking into it[66]To an extent I viewed the behaviour of Ms. Cowan through the eyes of the tribunal looking at unfair dismissal simply because I was trying to understand her thought processes but in particular whether there was any reason to suppose that she had not made a reasoned and reasonable decision. I was probing as to whether there was any evidence that Ms. Cowan had dismissed the claimant because of the emails.[67]I did look at whether Ms. Cowan, Ms. Nafeti and Ms. Allen put their heads together in order to dismiss the claimant. There are two aspects to this first that they concluded she was a troublemaker because of the emails, this would lead to a conclusion she was dismissed the principal reason of the emails and therefore the disclosures. Secondly that she was upsetting the team equilibrium[68]Having heard from all three I concluded they were honest and straightforward in giving their evidence. I was impressed by their knowledge of the working environment and how their teams work together.[69]To that end I concluded that although there had been perhaps a presumption that the claimant would be dismissed there was no decision to do so. In addition, whilst there was this presumption it was not because of the concerns raised in any email but because the claimant’s behaviour in upsetting the equilibrium of the team.[70]Turning therefore to the reason for the dismissal I am satisfied that the claimant was dismissed for the following reasons56.1 her inability to settle into the team and the disruption that she caused as a result56.2 behaviour which led to the complaint from Unisys56.3 the failure to disclose the DBS information. Whilst I appreciate the claimant has concerns that she wasn’t given an opportunity to have her say this is not a case which turns upon the reasonableness of the decision of the employer I am satisfied that Ms. Cowan did not make the decision to dismiss because of the disclosures. The claim for automatically unfair dismissal fails. Approved by: AEPitt