Ms J Locke v Nottinghamshire County Council: 2601543/2018
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2021 |
| Citation | 2601543/2018 |
| Published date | 17 May 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
Case Number 2601543/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms J Locke
Respondent Nottinghamshire County Council
HELD AT: Nottingham ON: 7-11, 14-16 October 2019,
20, 23-27 November 2020
(and in chambers:
17, 18 December 2020,
23, 24 February 2021)
BEFORE: Employment Judge Batten
Ms F French
REPRESENTATION:
For the Claimant: Mr O Manley, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mr J Gidney, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. the claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures is
well-founded;
2. the claim of ordinary unfair dismissal is well-founded;
3. the claimant suffered detriments for making protected disclosures;
4. the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract; and
Case Number 2601543/2018
2
5. the claimant’s complaint about unpaid holiday pay due at the termination
of her employment succeeds.
6. The claim shall proceed to a remedy hearing on a date to be fixed.
REASONS
Background
1. By a claim form submitted on 27 March 2018, the claimant presented
claims of unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal and detriment for making
protected disclosures, breach of contract in respect of notice pay and for
holiday pay due at termination of employment. The respondent entered its
response to the claim on 7 June 2018 and the claimant provided further
particulars of claim on 27 February 2019.
2. The claim was originally listed for an 8-day hearing in November 2019
before a 3-person Tribunal. The hearing proceeded but the evidence was
not completed in the time available and so the hearing was adjourned,
part-heard, and was listed for a further 6 days in December 2019. In
December 2019, the third member of the panel was taken ill and
subsequently, in 2020, resigned their judicial position due to continuing ill-
health. The parties agreed that the Tribunal hearing should be listed to
proceed with the remaining 2 members of the panel. Unfortunately, in
March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in restrictions on Tribunal
hearings such that the listed hearing of this claim had to be postponed and
re-listed in November 2019, when the evidence was completed. As the
oral evidence and submissions were completed only at the very end of the
fourteenth hearing day, the Tribunal reserved its judgment. The Tribunal
is grateful to the parties, and to Counsel representing them, for their
patience and forbearance through the difficulties which have led to the
hearing of the claim becoming protracted.
Evidence
3. An agreed bundle of documents comprising 2 lever-arch files was
presented at the commencement of the hearing in accordance with the
case management Orders. References to page numbers in these
Reasons are references to the page numbers in the agreed bundle. In the
course of the hearing, a number of further documents were added to the
bundle including a copy of the claimant’s work diary for the period from 18
April to 10 May 2017 and a copy of Ms Scott’s personal notes of the
disciplinary hearing.
Case Number 2601543/2018
3
4. The claimant gave evidence from a witness statement. In addition, she
called 5 witnesses in support of her case: - Ms K Hallam, a former
employee of the respondent; Mr J Donohue, former employee of the
respondent and Senior Practitioner; Mr T Robinson, former team manager
with the respondent; Mr P Teall, retired Group Manager of the
respondent’s Older Adult Services department; and Ms Y Raza,
Transformation Partner with the respondent. Each of the claimant’s
witnesses gave evidence from a witness statement and was subject to
cross-examination.
5. The respondent called 6 of its managers to give evidence on its behalf: -
Ms N Peace, Group Manager at the respondent and former line manager
of the claimant; Mr P McKay, former Service Deputy Director for Adult
Services at the respondent; Ms S Houlton, team manager in R’s Trading
Standards Group; Ms D Scott, Group Manager for Older Adults at the
respondent; Mr A Smith, Corporate Director at the respondent; and Ms S
Jeffery, HR manager. Each of the respondent’s witnesses gave evidence
from a witness statement and was subject to cross-examination.
Issues to be determined
6. At the outset, and by agreement of the parties, it was confirmed that the
issues to be determined by the Tribunal were:
Ordinary Unfair dismissal – section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
(“ERA”)
1. Was the respondent’s principal reason for dismissing the claimant
misconduct?
2. Was the misconduct that the claimant:
2.1 on 18 April and 8 May 2017 abused her position of trust and
confidence by misusing the Mosaic system and contacts within
the respondent (the Emergency Duty Team) to look up/discuss
private records of a member of the public (the service user known
as MGB) with whom she had no professional involvement with, or
right to do so?; and
2.2 shared private information on the service user MGB with other
parties?
3. Were the actions of the claimant in accessing the Mosaic records
capable of amounting to gross misconduct or misconduct in
accordance with the respondent’s policies and codes of conduct in the
light of the particular circumstances which faced her at the time?
To continue reading
Request your trial