Ms Z Windle v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and others: 1802008/2019 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 September 2022 |
| Date | 26 September 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
| Published date | 17 March 2020 |
Case Numbers: 1802008/2019
1803544/2019
1806366/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms. Z Windle
Respondents: (1) The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
(2) The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
(3) Claire Cuttell
(4) PS Greenwood
Heard at: Leeds On: 3,4,5,6 and 7 February 2020
Deliberations – in chambers 5 March 2020
Before: Employment Judge Shepherd
Members: Mr Dorman-Smith
Mr Fields
Appearances:
For the claimant: In person
For the respondent: Mr Jones
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
The claim that the claimant was subjected to detriments on the ground that she
had made public interest disclosures is not well founded and is dismissed.
REASONS
1. The claimant represented herself and the respondent was represented by Mr.
Jones.
2. The Tribunal heard evidence from:
Zuzana Windle, the claimant;
Claire Cuttell, the third respondent;
Case Numbers: 1802008/2019
1803544/2019
1806366/2019
2
Julie Greenwood, the fourth respondent.
3. The Tribunal had sight of a bundle of documents which, together with documents
added during the course of the hearing, consisted of 555 pages. The Tribunal
considered those documents to which it was referred by the parties.
4. The claim and issues were set out following a Preliminary Hearing before
Employment Judge Eeley on 21 August 2019.
These were as follows:
The claim
(1) The claimant is a professional interpreter who was engaged by Capita
(amongst others) to provide interpreting services for the first and second
respondents. She asserts that she made a series of protected disclosures
and as a result was subjected to unlawful detriments. The respondents
defend the claim. Whilst it is accepted that some protected disclosures were
made by the claimant, it is denied that she was subjected to detriments on
the ground that she had made protected disclosures.
The issues
(2) The issues between the parties which potentially fall to be determined by
the Tribunal are as follows:
Worker status
(i) For the purposes of these proceedings was the claimant a
worker within the meaning of sections 43K or 230(3)(b) of the
Employment Rights Act 1996?
Public interest disclosure (PID)
(ii) Did the claimant make one or more protected disclosures (ERA
sections 43B & 43C) as set out below? The claimant relies on
subsection(s) (a), (b) and (c) of section 43B (1).
(iii) Did the respondent subject the claimant to any detriments, as set
out below? Included within this issue are the questions of what
happened as a matter of fact and whether what happened was a
detriment to the claimant as a matter of law.
(iv) If so was this done on the ground that she made one or more
protected disclosures?
(v) The alleged disclosures the claimant relies on are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial