Ms V Thompson v Randall Parker Group Ltd T/a Parker Fine Foods: 2602175/2022

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2602175/2022

Between

Ms V ThompsonClaimant

Randall Parker Group Ltd T/a Parker Fine FoodsRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Ahmed

In person for claimant

Date 27 October 2025

JUDGMENT

The decision of the Tribunal is that: The Respondent’s application to strike out the claim is refused. The Claim remains listed for a hearing on 19, 20 and 21 August 2024 in accordance with the notice dated 18 March 2024.

REASONS

[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent from 11 October 2021 until her resignation on 13 August 2022. The claimant presented a claim on 13 September 2022, following a Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 2 period of ACAS early conciliation from 31 August 2022 until 2 September 2022. The proceedings

[2]This case has had a long history. It had been before the Tribunal on a number of occasions as follows:a. A private preliminary hearing by telephone before Employment Judge Ayre on 11 January 2023. The Case Management Summary confirmed that the claimant was claiming automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures only, and provided an agreed list of issues;

b. A private preliminary hearing by telephone before Employment Judge Clark on 23 October 2023 to discuss the possibility of judicial mediation. The hearing gave case management orders relating to the hearing bundle and witness statements for the final hearing;

c. A private preliminary hearing by telephone before Employment Judge Ahmed on 7 February 2024 to determine the claimant’s application for a postponement of the final hearing listed for 12 to 14 February 2024, which confirmed that the hearing bundle had been delivered to the claimant on or around 11 January 2024. The final hearing was postponed and re-listed for 3 days;

d. A private preliminary hearing by telephone before Employment Judge Shore on 16 July 2024. This listed a public preliminary hearing to determine the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s claim. It also contained an unless order such that the claim would stand dismissed unless the claimant sent her witness statement to the respondent by 4pm on 14 August Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 3 2024;

e. A public preliminary hearing on 1 November 2024 granting the claimant relief from sanctions as her complaint had been struck out for her failure to comply with an Unless Order. Further Case Management Orders were made in respect of the provision of an updated final hearing bundle.

[3]The final hearing took place at Leicester Employment Tribunal and all parties and the witnesses giving evidence attended in person. The Tribunal was provided with an agreed bundle of documents of over 450 pages. The bundle had not been provided electronically despite being ordered to do so, although the respondent had sent in paper bundles for the hearing in advance.

[4]The respondent provided a supplemental bundle of approximately 50 pages at the start of the hearing. These consisted of a Case Management Order and some documents relating to mitigation. The claimant objected to the respondent’s counter-schedule of loss and had in fact provided her own updated schedule of loss, although this was not on the Tribunal file. I asked that a copy of the claimant’s updated schedule of loss be provided to the Tribunal in readiness for remedy, should it be required.

[5]It was confirmed to the parties that the hearing was to consider liability only, and that remedy would be considered once a judgment on liability had been given, should the claimant succeed in her claim.

[6]Having provided an explanation of how the case would proceed during the 3 days in which it was listed, I confirmed that I had read the pleadings in the case and would read the witness statements, which had not been provided in advance of the hearing. However, I confirmed that I would not read the entire file of documents, but would consider those I was Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 4 referred to either by references contained within the witness statements and/or which the parties took me and/or the witnesses to during the hearing. I also explained that should there be particular documents that the parties wished me to refer to, the parties should ensure that they bring them to my attention. The claimant insisted that I read the entire bundle. Having explained that this was not proportionate to the case, and that it would entail much of the 3 day hearing being spent in reading many documents, which may not be relevant to my decision, the claimant repeatedly requested that I read the entire bundle and that a fair trial was not possible without doing so.

[7]I explained the overriding objective to the parties and that reading the entire bundle was disproportionate in this case, as it would require me to spend hours reading the entire file of documents and may then result in the hearing going part heard. The claimant said that she was not happy with my decision and asked for written reasons for it during the hearing, which I set out here.

[8]The claimant asked why the hearing was being heard by an Employment Judge sitting alone. I explained that, even before the changes in the composition of panels, it was usual for cases for automatic unfair dismissal to be heard by a Judge sitting alone. The claimant contended that she was claiming detriment, but the claim is clearly set out in the Case Management Order of Employment Judge Ayre as being a claim for automatic unfair dismissal (constructive) for making protected disclosures only. There was no detriment claim before me.

[9]I sent the parties away for an hour whilst I read the witness statements of the respondent’s four attending witnesses. The claimant had been provided with witness statements for 6 witnesses for the respondent and at the start of the hearing was unaware that 2 of them Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 5 would not be attending to give oral evidence. I had not been provided with the other 2 witnesses’ statements who did not attend. I asked all of the witnesses to ensure that they had read their own witness statements in readiness for giving evidence.

[10]On returning after I had read the witness statements, the claimant asked for more time to read her own witness statement. She had not brought it with her and could not recall having written one. The respondent’s representative gave the claimant a copy of her own witness statement, and I enquired how long the claimant would need to read her statement. She requested the entire afternoon, so that she could read the bundle, and urged me to do the same. I explained that the claimant should have come prepared to proceed with the hearing and therefore should have read the hearing bundle in advance should she have wished to do so, since the hearing has been listed for some time.

[11]The claimant stated that she had been in a criminal court the previous week and was unsure whether she would be at liberty to attend today’s hearing as she could have been imprisoned. She said that she had focussed her time and attention on that and had therefore not prepared for this hearing.

[12]I suggested that the claimant be given the opportunity to read her statement at the start of her evidence, it being only 3 pages long. However, the claimant requested that she read her statement in private. I therefore gave the claimant additional time to read her statement and said that her evidence would commence at 2pm.

[13]The claimant said that she was not ready to question the respondent’s witnesses as she had not known who was attending. The claimant had received witness statements for 6 witnesses, although, as stated above, only 4 of those were attending to give evidence. The other 2 were not being relied upon. I confirmed that regardless of the time the Tribunal Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 6 finished on the first day, the respondent’s witnesses would not give evidence until Tuesday morning at the earliest to enable the claimant sufficient time to consider her questions.

[14]The parties came back at 2pm. The respondent indicated that, providing the hearing was completed within the three-day allocation, it had no objection to the claimant starting her evidence on Tuesday morning. The claimant indicated that she would not have any questions for two of the respondent’s four witnesses, but on being told that this meant that she accepted what they said in their statements, she wished to consider this further. Therefore, there were still 5 possible witnesses to hear during the hearing and, in light of the concern that the hearing would go part heard, I considered it was appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective to start hearing the claimant’s evidence. I therefore requested that the claimant be sworn in to give evidence.

[15]The claimant indicated that she wished to appeal, which is her right. She also continued to make representations on the same matters despite having been given a decision on this, and initially did not move towards the witness table to give evidence. I therefore gave the claimant a strike out warning on the basis that her behaviour was unreasonable and was jeopardising the ability to hear the case fairly. I offered the claimant the opportunity to have a short break to consider her position, but she said she wanted a break to read the respondent’s witness statements. I explained that the short break would be to enable her to think over her behaviour. The claimant refused the offer and confirmed that she would now give evidence. The claimant was therefore sworn in and later apologised for her behaviour and thanked the Tribunal for giving her a chance.

[16]The claimant was asked whether there were any parts of her statement which were wrong or required amendment. She read her witness statement again out loud whilst giving Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 7 evidence and made some changes to it, which were noted by myself and the respondent before confirming its truth.

[17]I asked the claimant about the protected disclosures relied upon for her automatic unfair dismissal complaint, since most of these were not dealt with in the claimant’s witness statement. Her evidence is as set out below.

[18]The claimant indicated in answers to the respondent’s representative that she suffered with auditory processing disorder. As an adjustment, I allowed her to take notepaper to the witness table, to enable her to write down the questions asked, there being no objection from the respondent. However, the questioning of the claimant took much longer than expected as a result of this, due to the claimant’s need to read documents out loud from the bundle.

[19]The claimant requested that she be afforded the same time to question each of the respondent’s witnesses, despite having earlier indicated that she had no questions for two of those witnesses. I explained that she would be afforded an appropriate time in which to question the respondent’s witnesses, but that it was disproportionate to have the same amount of time for each of the respondent’s witnesses as had been spent with her.

[20]We therefore heard evidence from the claimant herself. On behalf of the respondent, we heard from:a. Craig Chapman, General Manager;

b. Amanda Stimpson, Group HR & Payroll Manager of a group company of the respondent;

c. Lewis Hill, In-take Supervisor; and

d. Anna Pozarova, Technical Manager. Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 8

[21]All of the witnesses had provided written statements, which stood as their evidence in chief. They were subjected to questions from the other party and myself.

[22]The evidence was completed at the end of the third day, and the Tribunal reserved its

[23]It was agreed that the hearing would deal with liability first and only go on to consider remedy should the claimant succeed in her complaint of automatic unfair dismissal. Therefore, the issues on liability were as set out in Employment Judge Ayre’s Case Management Order, as set out below, and the parties were referred to this list at the start of the hearing. The claimant raised no objection to the list of issues, but during evidence when asked about the protected disclosures relied upon, said that she had not written the list of issues and they were “not her words”. However, it was clear that the claimant had provided the wording to Employment Judge Ayre during the preliminary hearing, and the record of the hearing had been sent to the claimant on 18 January 2023, with no issues raised by the claimant until during her evidence.

[24]The list of issues relating to liability as agreed with Employment Judge Ayre were as follows: “Automatic Unfair Dismissal1.1 Did the claimant make one or more qualifying disclosures as defined in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The Tribunal will decide:1.1.1 What did the claimant say or write? When? To whom? The claimant says she made disclosures on these occasions:1.1.1.1 Verbally between mid-June and mid-July 2022 to the Production Manager (Craig) when she raised concerns about not being provided with drivers’ sheets;

1.1.1.2 In an email to Craig (copied to the Plant Manager Kenny Buckley) on 26 July 2022 raising concerns about the refrigeration unit in the respondent’s van not working; Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 9

1.1.1.3 Verbally in the last week of her employment to the Intake Supervisor when she raised concerns about the refrigeration unit not working;

1.1.1.4 Verbally in the last week of July 2022 to ‘Donna’ in Quality Assurance when she raised concerns about the refrigeration unit not working; and

1.1.1.5 Verbally to the Production Manager, Craig, when she raised concerns that the respondent was breaching food hygiene rules by transporting meat products in a van that was not properly refrigerated, and making ‘fraudulent claims on the product’ by labelling products incorrectly when it came to their country of origin, and by not adhering to the Traceability system?

1.1.2 Did she disclose information?

1.1.3 Did she believe the disclosure of information was made in the public interest?

1.1.4 Was that belief reasonable?

1.1.5 Did she believe it tended to show that:1.1.5.1 a criminal offence had been, was being or was likely to be committed;

1.1.5.2 a person had failed, was failing or was likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation;

1.1.5.3 a miscarriage of justice had occurred, was occurring or was likely to occur;

1.1.5.4 the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered;

1.1.5.5 the environment had been, was being or was likely to be damaged;

1.1.5.6 information tending to show any of these things had been, was being or was likely to be deliberately concealed.

1.1.6 Was that belief reasonable?

1.2 If the claimant made a qualifying disclosure, it was a protected disclosure because it was made to the claimant’s employer.

1.3 Was the claimant dismissed?1.3.1 Did the respondent do the following things:1.3.1.1 Did the Production Manager (Craig) and the Plant Manager (Kenny) intimidate and bully the claimant between the beginning of May 2022 and the second week in June 2022 by making her and a colleague ‘Donna’ backdate documents in preparation for an audit by the British Retail Consortium?

1.3.1.2 Fail to pay the claimant for overtime worked in July 2022?

1.3.1.3 Fail to pay the claimant a bonus or give her a pay review in July 2022? Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 10

1.3.1.4 Did the Plant Manager tell the claimant in the last week of her employment that she did not have to attend an audit with Leicester City Council and he would do the audit instead, in response to the claimant expressing concerns about attending the audit. The claimant says that this caused her to believe that she was going to be sacked.

1.3.2 Did that breach the implied term of trust and confidence? The Tribunal will need to decide:1.3.2.1 Whether the respondent behaved in a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent; and

1.3.2.2 Whether it had reasonable and proper cause for doing so.

1.3.3 Did the claimant resign in response to the breach? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the breach of contract was a reason for the claimant’s resignation.

1.3.4 Did the claimant affirm the contract before resigning? The Tribunal will need to decide whether the claimant’s words or actions showed that they chose to keep the contract alive even after the breach.

1.4 Was the reason or principal reason for dismissal that the claimant made a protected disclosure or protected disclosures? If so, the claimant will be regarded as unfairly dismissed.”

[25]During the hearing, the claimant confirmed that she did not rely upon paragraphs numbered 1.3.1.2 (failure to pay the claimant for overtime worked in July 2022) nor 1.3.1.3 (failure to pay the claimant a bonus or give her a pay review in July 2022) for her constructive unfair dismissal complaint. Day 2 of the hearing

[26]It was alleged by a clerk that the claimant had been vaping on the Tribunal premises, something denied by the claimant. The lead clerk warned the claimant that should she do so, she would be asked to leave the premises. I reiterated this to the parties at the start of Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 11 the second day.

[27]There was an incident over lunch on the second day, not witnessed by me. The claimant alleged that the respondent’s representative had hit her arm whilst leaving the Tribunal room for lunch, and that a clerk had laughed at this. The respondent’s representative apologised during the hearing should he have accidentally hit the claimant’s chair. The claimant confirmed that she wished to complain about the clerk, and I arranged for the complaints’ procedure to be sent to the parties. Day 3 of the hearing

[28]On the morning of the third day, the claimant went into the respondent’s waiting room saying that she was looking for something. The respondent raised concerns that its witnesses were worried about the claimant’s behaviour, and so I arranged for security to see the claimant to ask her to stay in her waiting room until she was called up to the hearing. It was reported to me that the claimant had an argument with the security staff.

[29]As a result of the claimant’s conduct, I gave her a further strike out warning on the basis that the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted by her was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious and/or that a fair trial may not be possible should she continue in this vein, in accordance with rule 38 of the ET rules.

[30]As there were no further incidents, it was possible to complete the evidence from all of the respondent’s witnesses at approximately 4.30pm on the third and final day of the hearing.

[31]The parties agreed that written submissions could be given to avoid the necessity of attending for a further day. The respondent asked for 4 weeks to send in written submissions. The claimant requested 6 weeks for her to send in her written submissions. It was agreed that the submissions would be sent in by 17 September 2025, and that Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 12 following receipt of these a reserved judgment would be sent to the parties.

[32]The claimant asked whether she could include fresh evidence and refer to the witness statements of the two witnesses who had not attended to give oral evidence at Tribunal. I confirmed that she could only refer to evidence from the hearing (including that from the bundle to which I had been taken) and could not refer to the witness statements of the two witnesses who did not attend, particularly as I had not been given copies of those statements and their evidence was not provided to the Tribunal.

[33]It was agreed that when sending in written submissions, the parties would confirm their availability for a remedy hearing should the claimant succeed in her complaint of automatic unfair dismissal. Both parties sent in written submissions to the Tribunal, the last being received on 17 September 2025.

[34]The claimant sent in additional emails following on from this date, which have been read and considered before finalising this Judgment. The emails in the main refer to the claimant reporting the respondent’s representative and Mr Chapman to the police for perjury and witness intimidation, and referring to the approximately 122 crimes she has reported to the police within the last 9 years.

[35]I was away from Tribunal from 20 September 2025 until 20 October 2025, but endeavoured to get this Judgment to the parties as soon as possible on my return.

Findings of fact

[36]The claimant was employed by the respondent from 11 October 2021 until 13 August 2022. The claimant’s evidence was not consistent in respect of what was the last day of her employment. Her evidence was that the last day of her employment was Tuesday 9 August when she initially sent her resignation. Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 13

[37]It was clear that the claimant sent an email at 8.40am on 9 August 2022 [202] confirming that she was resigning from the respondent’s employment and at this point provided one month’s notice, such that her employment was to terminate on 8 September 2022. The claimant did not initially accept that she had sent her resignation so early on 9 August, but having realised that she forwarded her email dated 26 July 2022 (relied upon as a protected disclosure) at 9.09am on 9 August 2022, she seemed to accept that she had sent her resignation early on that day.

[38]Following the claimant giving her emailed resignation, the claimant did not attend work after 9 August 2022 due to illness. She therefore contended that her employment ended on 9 August 2022, but that cannot be the case. She may not have been at work, but she clearly was still employed at this point.

[39]On Saturday 13 August 2022, the claimant sent a further email confirming that she would not be returning to work. Therefore, her last day of her employment was 13 August 2022, something which was accepted by the claimant whilst giving

evidence.

[40]The claimant was employed as a Technical Manager within the respondent’s meat processing plant. Her role included writing/ amending policies and procedures, to comply with the British Retail Consortium (‘BRC’) and food safety standards for the site, liaising with appropriate authorities for inspections and audits, arranging and organising exportation of products, and writing a number of documents or reports on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or annual basis, to ensure compliance.

[41]There were two employees on the site on which the claimant worked, who were involved in technical or compliance: the claimant and Aldona Wozniak (referred to as Donna in the list of issues). Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 14

[42]The respondent’s evidence, which I accept, was that the master policies/ procedures were retained on the respondent’s electronic system, although there were folders within the office containing hard copies of the most recent and up to date documents and policies.

[43]Drivers were required to complete daily vehicle check sheets [example P345-6]. The claimant believed that the drivers’ sheets were on 2 pages, and some within the bundle were only one sided. Having seen a template during the hearing, the sheets did consist of 2 pages. The sheets confirmed the vehicle registration number, and a pre-load inspection of the vehicle confirmed whether it was in working and roadworthy condition. The sheets also contained temperature checks for the vehicles used to transport meat to the respondent’s customers.

[44]The claimant disputed that she saw the drivers’ sheets, but I accept the evidence of Mr Chapman and Mr Hill that these sheets were kept in a tray on the claimant’s desk for her to monitor and log. The claimant’s evidence was that she had to regularly chase drivers for their driver sheets. However, from the evidence of Lewis Hill, I am satisfied that this would be for a day or two at most, and that the drivers’ sheets were not concealed from the claimant, as she alleged. Further, I do not accept that the claimant raised with Mr Chapman concerns over not being provided with drivers’ sheets between mid-June and mid-July 2022. It was clear from the evidence that Mr Chapman and the claimant were on holiday at different times during a significant part of this time, and I accept the evidence of Mr Chapman that the claimant did not raise this with him during that period.

[45]On 17 June 2022 one of the refrigeration units on the vans hired by the respondent to transport the meat products to customers’ premises was not working. The driver highlighted this on his driver’s sheet [344]. Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 15

[46]It appears from the driver’s sheets within the bundle, that the failure of the refrigeration units on the vans regularly occurred in the vans being used by the respondent between June and August 2022. It was clear that Mr Chapman and Mr Hill were both aware of the failure of the refrigeration units in the vans soon after the first time this happened.

[47]The claimant suggested that the respondent concealed from her the fact that the vans were not refrigerated. I do not accept that to be the case, since it was clear that the drivers’ sheets highlighted the issue with the refrigeration units in the vans and these were provided to the claimant. Also, both Mr Hill’s and Mr Chapman’s evidence was that they knew of the problem from the beginning and there would be no reason for them to conceal this from the claimant.

[48]The claimant says she raised the issue of the unrefrigerated vans on a number of occasions between June and August to Craig Chapman and Kenny Buckley (Plant Manager) and asked for updates. There was no evidence that the claimant had specifically raised concerns about the health and safety issues or breach of food hygiene regulations concerning the transport of meat in an unrefrigerated unit, other than saying that the refrigeration unit was broken and asking for it be repaired or for an update.

[49]The claimant disputed the protected disclosures as set out in the case management order of Employment Judge Ayre, saying that these were ‘not her words’, although accepted that they had been discussed at the preliminary hearing. She did say that she had raised concerns about food hygiene rules being breached by transporting meat products in a nonrefrigerated van, but this was disputed by Mr Chapman. As the claimant’s evidence was not consistent, other than raising the fact that the vans were not refrigerated, I accept Mr Chapman’s evidence that the claimant did not raise concerns about food hygiene rules Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 16 being breached.

[50]The claimant was away on holiday for some weeks in June and much of July, although could not confirm the exact dates. The claimant’s evidence was that she raised the fact that the vans had broken refrigeration units on a number of occasions when she saw Mr Chapman. However, her evidence was that she and Mr Chapman were “like ships that passed in the night” due to both of them taking separate holidays during this period, as they were unable to take holidays at the same time.

[51]It is not clear exactly how many times the claimant raised the fact that the refrigeration units on the vans were not working, but I am satisfied that she did so on a few occasions. However, it was not clear in the claimant’s evidence either in her statement or when answering questions, what she specifically said about the refrigeration units on the vans apart from that they were not working. I therefore find that the claimant raised the issue that the vans’ refrigeration units were not working, but did no more than that. I do not accept that she raised specific concerns about health and safety nor that food hygiene rules were being breached.

[52]The claimant sent an email on 26 July 2022, relied upon as a protected disclosure for her automatic unfair dismissal complaint. This email [374] was sent to Kenny Buckley and “production1@parkerfinefoods.com” which I am satisfied went to Craig Chapman and Charlie Hookerby, both in the respondent’s production team. This email stated: “Hi Craig Arans (sic) driver sheets from last week say his refrigeration unit is not working and I have just downloaded the attached report. Please can you update me? Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 17 Thanks Vicki”.

[53]The email attached a report [373] which the claimant confirmed in evidence showed the temperatures recorded by probes within the van.

[54]The claimant says that she had no response to this. Mr Chapman could not recall receiving this email. I am therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was no response to this email. Mr Chapman’s evidence was that the claimant should have been aware of this from the first day that a driver reported it on his driver sheet, and that this should have been raised prior to 26 July 2022.

[55]The respondent’s evidence was that Mr Chapman and Mr Hill were aware of the problems with the refrigeration units on the vans soon after the first driver reported in mid June 2022. Their evidence was that procedures had been put in place to ensure that the meat products were not compromised by the faulty refrigeration units in the vans. In brief, this was that the products were kept in the “naked” fridge at -1 overnight, but would be transferred to the cold store at -18 at around 3am, prior to being loaded on the delivery vans with ice packs around them. Mr Chapman’s evidence was that this prevented the meat products’ temperature from reaching unacceptable levels during transit. He confirmed that the temperature of the products when delivered to the respondent’s customers were within acceptable ranges and that the customers were satisfied with this.

[56]The claimant clearly thought that this was not sufficient and not appropriate and could cause harm, although I do not accept that she ever specifically said this to anyone at the respondent’s organisation. Her evidence was that the goods should have been placed on hold and the workaround measures undertaken were not appropriate. Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 18

[57]The claimant gave evidence that she also raised with Mr Chapman that fraudulent claims on products were being made, and that products were being labelled incorrectly with their Country of origin resulting in problems over traceability. However, this was disputed by Mr Chapman. There were no documents supporting the claimant’s assertion, and whilst her witness statement refers to an Auditor having “suspicions” it does not say that she raised this with the respondent. I therefore accept the evidence of Mr Chapman that the claimant did not raise any concerns over labelling or traceability.

[58]The claimant alleges that she and her colleague Aldona (referred to in the list of issues as Donna) were bullied by Mr Chapman and Kenny Buckley, Plant Manager, to backdate documents in preparation for an audit by BRC. However, this was denied by Mr Chapman and Mr Hill gave evidence that he had never been bullied into completing inappropriate documentation. I prefer the evidence of Mr Chapman and Mr Hill, as there was no evidence to support the claimant’s assertion.

[59]The claimant gave evidence that she learned on or around 9 August 2022 that the company was not licensed to operate due to an administrative error. As a result of being concerned about this, the claimant did not wish to attend a meeting with the local authority, and that she was told that she did not have to attend. The claimant took this as a threat to her job, and as a result of this went off sick and then submitted her resignation on 9 August 2022 [202]. Her resignation email, sent to Kenny Buckley, said that she “would like to terminate [her] employment and give 1 months’ notice. This will take [her] to the 9th Sep 2022.” The rest of her email concerned taking holiday. No reference was made as to the reason for her resignation.

[60]On 13 August 2022, the claimant sent a follow up email to Mr Buckley [368]. It said: Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 19 “On reflection of the conversation I had with yourself (on Tuesday this week after I gave 1 months (sic) notice) regarding the products being delivered to our customers in a van with no refrigeration. I stated it was unacceptable and I would not be prepared to not disclose this to the FSA. “The fact that no action was taken to remedy this breach of food regulations was unacceptable. You was (sic) fully aware that products were being delivered without refrigeration for weeks. My previous e-mail bringing this issue to yours and Craig's attention was not responded to I'm sorry but I cannot continue to represent the company as technical manager without the commitment of senior management. I will not be returning to work and consider myself to be constructively dismissed.”

[61]This is the first time the claimant had raised specific issues with the breach of food regulations. Previously, she only raised the fact that the vans were unrefrigerated and asked for updates. However, her email and the discussion she referred to both took place after the claimant had resigned, as made clear in her email.

[62]The claimant confirmed her resignation by email dated 19 August 2022 [385] and this was accepted by the respondent on 22 August 2022 [384]. In this email, she again refers to Mr Chapman and Mr Buckley knowing that fresh produce was being distributed in unrefrigerated vans for weeks and that her concerns were ignored by them. The email referred to the practice putting the public health at risk. Again, I do not accept that this was said prior to the claimant’s resignation.

[63]Later in August, following the claimant’s resignation, she raised concerns over the respondent’s breaches of food safety and potential fraud to Leicester City Council, who Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 20 forwarded the details to the National Food Crime Unit at the Food Standards Agency.

[64]The claimant never returned to work after 9 August 2022. Submissions

[65]The parties sent in written submissions. The respondent’s were in brief, that whistleblowing must be the reason or principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal. It set out what was required in order to qualify as a protected disclosure. It was denied that the claimant had made a protected disclosure.

[66]As to the conduct relied upon for the constructive unfair dismissal complaint, the respondent’s clear evidence was that the claimant and other staff were not intimidated and/or bullied, and further that no staff were instructed to backdate documents. The claimant had withdrawn the allegations at 1.3.1.2 and 1.3.1.3. The timing of the resignation meant that she could not rely upon allegation 1.3.1.4 since any conversation with Mr Buckley was after her resignation at 8.40am on 9 August. The reason for the claimant’s resignation was her realisation that she had a lot of outstanding tasks to complete before the next audit. Her second resignation letter was a tactic designed for financial gain. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures must therefore be dismissed.

[67]The claimant’s submissions included concerns over the correct legal entity for the respondent. She contended that the conversation with Mr Buckley over the respondent not being legally registered took place on 8 August 2022, in which he told her that she would not be required to represent the company going forward, so that the claimant believed she was going to be dismissed. The claimant was not willing to defend the company as she believed she would be committing a crime by doing so. The vans not Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 21 being compliant with temperature controls was the principal reason for her unfair dismissal, and the claimant was aware that more products were leaving the plant as British than were received. The 8 August was established as the claimant’s last working day during the hearing. The claimant was ill with stress and suffered with complications from shingles.

[68]The claimant contended that the respondent took over 5 months to comply with the case management order to prepare sufficient copies of the documents for the hearing. The claimant could see no reason why a judgment was not made at the end of the 3 day hearing and why the parties had been instructed to make written submissions.

[69]Mr Chapman knew that the vans were not refrigerated for nearly 3 months, and it was proven that this was concealed by Mr Chapman and Mr Hill.

[70]The ET1 claim form had been fabricated as there were mistakes and discrepancies on it, which would not have been made. The police had lured the claimant to a police station with a plan to kidnap her to support all matters raised to the Judiciary. She was detained by the NHS for one week, and the claimant queried who had tipped the police off. During the week she was kidnapped by the police there was a Tribunal appointment, although she sent an email to say she was in hospital so was unable to attend.

[71]The claimant says that there was “alleged intimidation by the court staff during the hearing and the alleged reckless common assault by the respondent’s representative” which she had reported to the Leicestershire Police and had informed them there was no video evidence of the Court hearing, even though she could see video footage whilst giving evidence.

[72]The claimant has been traumatised by the hearing and felt that no consideration was given to her disability or the fact that she is unable to access safe healthcare. Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 22

[73]The bundle was provided to the claimant on mid-morning of the second day of the hearing leaving her unable to prepare for cross examination or questions for the witnesses.

LAW

[74]Under section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) a protected disclosure is a qualifying disclosure (as defined by section 43B), which is made by a worker in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H.

[75]Section 43B(1) provides that a qualifying disclosure means any disclosure of information, which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, is made in the public interest and tends to show one or more of the following –(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or

(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

[76]As HHJ Auerbach identified in Williams v Michelle Brown AM

UKEAT/0044/19

/00, “…this definition breaks down into a number of elements. First, there must be a disclosure of information. Secondly, the worker must believe that the disclosure is made in the public interest. Thirdly, if the worker does hold such a belief, it must be reasonably held. Fourthly, the worker must believe that the disclosure tends to show one or more of the matters listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f). Fifthly, if the worker does hold such a belief, it must be reasonably held.’ Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 23

[77]Under Section 43C(1) ERA, a qualifying disclosure becomes a protected disclosure if it is made in accordance with this section, including where the worker makes the disclosure to his or her employer.

[78]The EAT considered what amounts to a ‘disclosure of information’ in Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld

[2010] ICR 325

and held that there is a distinction between disclosing information, which means ‘conveying facts’ and making allegations or expressing dissatisfaction. It gave, as an example of disclosure of information, a hospital employee saying ‘wards have not been cleaned for two weeks’ or ‘sharps were left lying around’. In contrast, the EAT held, a statement that ‘you are not complying with health and safety obligations’ is a mere allegation.

[79]The Court of Appeal, in Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth

[2018] ICR 1850

, established that ‘information’ and ‘allegation’ are not mutually exclusive. There must be sufficient factual content tending to show one of the matters in subsection 43B(1) of the ERA 1996 in order for there to be a qualifying disclosure.

[80]The information disclosed by the worker does not have to be true, but rather, the worker must reasonably believe that it tends to show one of the matters falling within section 43(B)(1) ERA.

[81]The employee must also reasonably believe that the disclosure is in the public interest. When deciding whether the worker had the relevant ‘reasonable belief’ the test to be applied is both subjective (i.e. did the individual worker have the reasonable belief) and objective (i.e. was it objectively reasonable for the worker to hold that belief).

[82]Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board

[2012] IRLR 4

, which was endorsed in Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman

[2017] ICR 84

, in which the EAT held Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 24 that, on the facts believed to exist by an employee, a judgment must be made, first, as to whether the worker held the belief and, secondly, as to whether objectively, on the basis of the facts, there was a reasonable belief in the truth of the complaints.

[83]When considering whether a disclosure is in the public interest, the Tribunal must decide what the worker considered to be in the public interest, whether the worker believed that the disclosure served that interest and whether that belief was held reasonably.

[84]In Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) and another v Nurmohamed

[2018] ICR 731

the EAT held that it is not for the Tribunal to consider for itself whether a disclosure was in the public interest, but rather the questions are(1) whether the worker making the disclosure in fact believes it to be in the public interest and

(2) whether that belief was reasonable. Tribunals should be careful not to substitute their views of whether disclosures are in the public interest for that of the worker.

[85]A dismissal is ‘automatically’ unfair if the reason or principal reason is that the person dismissed has made a protected disclosure. Section 103A of the ERA provides that “An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.”

[86]Section 94(1) ERA provides the right for employees not to be unfairly dismissed. Section 108(1) of the Act generally requires a qualifying period of not less than two years’ continuous employment before a Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such a complaint. There are a number of exceptions, which include where the dismissal arises from having made a protected public interest disclosure under s103A of ERA.

[87]Under section 95(1)(c) ERA, an employee is dismissed if she terminates the contract under Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 25 which she is employed (with or without notice) in circumstances in which she is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct.

Conclusion

[88]The only complaint before the Tribunal is automatic constructive unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures.

[89]In light of the facts found, the claimant told her employer that the refrigeration units in the leased vans the respondent used to transport meat to customers were not working on a few occasions and asked for updates. She did raise this verbally and in an email dated 26 July 2022 [374], but did not say that she considered this posed a risk to health and safety, nor that the food hygiene regulations were being breached. This was only said once she had already resigned. Therefore, there was insufficient factual content in the disclosures made so that they did not tend to show any of the matters within section 43B(1) ERA. The claimant merely said a statement of fact that the refrigeration units were broken, as if reporting an incident which required the respondent to take remedial action but which did not raise health and safety concerns, nor breaches of legal obligations nor criminal offences being committed. There was no hint of a protected disclosure in my view.

[90]The respondent had taken remedial action in any event, although as set out above, it is not necessary for the protected disclosure to be true, providing that the worker believes it to be true and has reasonable grounds for doing so.

[91]I do not consider what the claimant said to Mr Chapman and/or Mr Hill and/or Mr Buckley verbally and/or in her email dated 26 July 2022 to be protected disclosures. What was said conveyed facts, but, in my view, was insufficient to amount to a protected disclosure in accordance with the ERA. Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 26

[92]Therefore, as I have found that there is no protected disclosure, the automatic constructive unfair dismissal complaint must fail and be dismissed. However, for completeness, I have considered whether the respondent committed the alleged conduct relied upon for the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal complaint.

[93]Firstly, I do not find that the claimant was intimidated and bullied by Mr Chapman and Mr Buckley at any time to backdate documents in preparation for an audit. This was denied by Mr Chapman and Mr Hill, and I accept their evidence.

[94]The claimant does not rely upon the alleged failure to pay her for overtime worked or a bonus or pay review in July 2022 (paragraphs 1.3.1.2 and 1.3.1.3 of the list of issues).

[95]I accept that the claimant was told by Mr Buckley that she did not have to attend an audit with Leicester City Council, after she raised concerns about doing so. However, I consider that this was said to her after she had resigned from the respondent’s employment for the reasons set out in the facts above. Even if he had said this to the claimant before her resignation, I do not accept that this constituted behaviour calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the trust and confidence between the claimant and the respondent. I consider that Mr Buckley was responding to the claimant’s wish not to attend the meeting in the circumstances and was perfectly reasonable.

[96]I consider that the reason for the claimant’s resignation early on 9 August 2022 was that she was told by Mr Buckley that the company was not licensed to operate and she was concerned about this. However, this is not linked in any way to the disclosures she made.

[97]Therefore, the claimant was not automatically constructively unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures and the claim is dismissed.

[98]There is no need to list a remedy hearing in light of this decision. Case number: 2602175/2022 v3 10.2.25 27 Approved by: