Miss P Sullivan v Isle of Wight Council: 1406053/2020
| Judgment Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Citation | 1406053/2020 |
| Date | 04 January 2022 |
| Published date | 17 January 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case number 1406053.2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Miss P Sullivan
Respondent Isle of Wight Council
Heard at: Exeter On: 29 & 30 November 2021
(remotely by video hearing)
Before:
Employment Judge Goraj
Representation
The claimant: in person
The respondent: Mr F Mc Combie, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IS that: -
1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s
complaints of protected public interest disclosure detriment pursuant to
sections 47B, 48 and /or 49B of the Employment Rights Act 1996,
which complaints are therefore dismissed.
2. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s complaint of
victimisation pursuant to sections 27 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010
(in respect of Issue 7.3.2 – the refusal to allow the claimant to pursue
an appeal under the respondent’s complaints procedure).
3. The respondent’s applications for the striking out of the claimant’s
claims and/or the award of a deposit order pursuant to Regulations 37
Case number 1406053.2020
2
and /or 39 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution
and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 are dismissed.
4. The claimant’s extant claims of direct sex discrimination/ victimisation
pursuant to sections 13, 27 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 (Issues
5.3.1, 5.3.2, 7.3.1 and 7.3.2) are listed for hearing as separately
recorded.
REASONS
Conduct of the hearing
1. The hearing was conducted a s a remote hearing (by CVP) to which
the parties consented. It was held in this manner in the light of the
claimant’s asthma, and as it was, in all the circumstances, in the
interests of justice/ in accordance with the overriding objective to do
so.
Introduction
2. By a claim form presented on 14 November 2020, the claimant, w ho
was an unsuccessful job applicant for financial positions in the
respondent, brought claims of sex discrimination and detriment for
making protected public interest disclosures. The claimant stated in
the attachment to her claim form that it was a claim for “discrimination,
victimisation and whistleblowing” in relation to the respondent’s refusal
to allow the claimant a right to a grievance appeal (email from Ms C
Shand of the respondent to the claimant dated 18 September 2020)
due to:- (a) the claimant raising a g rievance in respect of the
involvement by a manager of the respondent in alleged accounting and
taxation irregularities and /or (b) that the claimant had raised past legal
proceedings under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975/ the Equality Act
2010 (“the 2010 Act”). The claimant’s “grievance” related to alleged
discriminatory/ detrimental conduct by the respondent in respect of the
two interviews referred to in paragraph 3 below.
3. The claimant also referred in the attachment to her claim form to
previous alleged discrimination and/or detrimental treatment in respect
of two unsuccessful applications for posts with the respondent namely:
- (a) the post of DPSS Account Officer – interview on 31 October 2019
and rejection on 4 November 2019 and (b) the post of Direct Payment
Finance Officer – interview on 5 December 2019 and rej ection on 10
December 2019).
4. The claimant further stated in the attachment to her claim form that
she appreciated that there were time issues in respect of ma tters
arising prior to 18 September 2020 and that she was therefore relying
upon them for reference only. The claimant however, also referred in
her claim form to the allegation relating to the refusal of her grievance
appeal as part of a continuing course of conduct.
Case number 1406053.2020
3
5. The claimant’s ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate records that the
claimant’s EC notification was received by ACAS on 18 September
2020 and that the EC Certificate was issued on 18 October 2020.
6. The respondent disputed the allegations in its response form including
on the grounds that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain
the claimant’s claims in respect of the interviews in October and
December 2019 because they were presented outside the statutory
time limits and /or that the claimant did not have the necessary status
(as a job applicant) to pursue a complaint of detriment for making
protected public interest disclosures. Further/ in the alternative, the
respondent contended that the claims should be struck out on the
grounds that they were scandalous or vexatious or had no reasonable
prospects of success.
The case management hearing/order
7. The matter was the subject of a case management hearing on 14 July
2021 and subsequent case management order dated 16 July 2021
(“the CMO”) du ring/ in which the Tribunal sought to clarify the nature
of the claimant’s claims and gave further directions for the future
conduct of the case. The CMO is at pages 74- 86 of the bundle. In brief
summary the Tribunal :- (a) sought to clarify the issues as recorded in
the CMO including in the provisional List of Issues (paragraphs 29
onwards of the CMO) (b) decided to list the matter for this Preliminary
Hearing to determine the Preliminary Issues and other matters
identified at paragraph 1 of the CMO (including in particular the issues
of status and time limits as stated at paragraphs 1.1 – 1.4 of the CMO)
and (c) gave directions for the further clarification of the claims /
preparation for the Preliminary Hearing (paragraphs 9-12 of the CMO).
8. The claimant subsequently provided further clarification of her claims
in her letters dated 3, 13 and 17 August 2021 (pages 87 - 95 of the
bundle) including that she did not wish to pursue any application to
amend her claim form to bring any complaint of disability discrimination
and/or harassment related to sex.
9. It was however apparent from the above correspondence and from the
helpful written submissions which were submitted by the parties for the
purposes of this Preliminary Hearing, that there were still a number of
issues which required further clarification as recorded below.
Witnesses
10. The Tribunal received a witness statement and heard oral evidence
from the claimant. The Tribunal did not receive any evidence from the
respondent.
To continue reading
Request your trial