The claimant in the tribunal is a professional interpreter who provided services to two police forces via the supplier which held the language services contract. She raised a number of concerns about the way in which those services were being procured and provided, which were found to be protected disclosures. She complained that she had been subjected to detrimental treatment on the ground that she made those disclosures. As framed by her, there were eight such complaints. The tribunal found that in five instances the conduct complained of did not entail the claimant being subjected to a detriment. In three, it did, but the conduct complained of was found not to have been on grounds of the protected disclosures. The tribunal’s decision was challenged as being not Meek-compliant in respect of all eight complaints. The appeal succeeded in respect of three of the complaints, where the tribunal had failed to explain why the conduct was not regarded as amounting to detrimental treatment, and a further pair of complaints, where the tribunal had not addressed the core of the claimant’s case as to why the conduct was because of her protected disclosures. The decision in respect of the other complaints was Meek-compliant.
[2021] UKEAT 2021-000406
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.669835