Ms C Bickerstaff v The Royal British Legion: 1401026/2016 and 1400719/2017
| Judgment Date | 15 November 2017 |
| Date | 15 November 2017 |
| Citation | 1401026/2016 and 1400719/2017 |
| Published date | 08 January 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
1
Cases No. 1401026/2016 and 1400719/2017
Page 1 of 22
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant Respondent
Ms C Bickerstaff -v- The Royal British Legion
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD AT Southampton ON 06-10 November 2017
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE PSL Housego
MEMBERS Ms A Sinclair
Mr D Stewart
Representation
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms L Gould, of Counsel, instructed by DAC
Beachcroft LLP
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:
1. The claims of the appellant are in time.
2. The matters said in the first claim to be public interest disclosures were
not public interest disclosures.
3. The additional matter raised in the second claim was a public interest
disclosure.
4. The claimant was subjected to detriment by reason of making that public
interest disclosure.
2
Cases No. 1401026/2016 and 1400719/2017
Page 2 of 22
5. The claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed.
6. The claim for personal injury resulting from public interest disclosure
detriment succeeds.
REASONS
1. In this case the claimant Ms Bickerstaff claims that she made public interest disclosures,
suffered detriment as a result, and not being satisfied with the way a grievance was
handled, resigned and has been unfairly constructively dismissed.
2. The respondent contends that the matters said to be public interest disclosure were
personal grievances raised by her, not public interest disclosures, that the matters raised
were in any event out of time, that the matters complained of were fairly dealt with in a
grievance appeal hearing, the result of which was communicated to the claimant shortly
before she resigned, so that there was no breach of mutual trust and confidence and so
no dismissal.
3. In response the claimant says that the actions related to her team, and were a generic
concern about the management of her manager, and given the status of the respondent a
matter of public interest, were a series and so there is no time point, but that if there was
a time point it was not reasonably practicable for her to lodge her claim sooner, and that
she lodged it in a further period that was reasonable.
Evidence
4. We have heard from the claimant, from her former line manager Keith Sked, formerly a
Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army, and from her union representative Mark Lonsdale.
5. For the respondent we heard from:
• James France, Area Manager, Dorset Hampshire and Isle of Wight, a former RAF
Squadron Leader, line manager to Keith Sked, and in his absence line manager of the
claimant.
• Sandra Fruish (Assistant Director of Membership, at the time Area manager South East,
who was asked to deal with the return to work of the claimant and with personal issues),
• Gail Walters, Assistant Director of Operations, West Midlands (who conducted the
claimant’s grievance appeal), and from
• Mandy Heal, Assistant Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development.
6. There was a degree of conflict on the evidence. We have heard the witnesses give their
evidence and have observed their demeanour in the witness box. We found the following
facts proven on the balance of probabilities after considering the whole of the evidence,
both oral and documentary, and after listening to the factual and legal submissions made
by and on behalf of the respective parties.
To continue reading
Request your trial