Miss G Treadwell v Barton Turns Development Ltd

Background 

Miss G Treadwell, an events manager for Barton Turns Development Ltd, was dismissed on 28 June 2022 after less than six months of employment. Unable to claim standard unfair dismissal due to insufficient service, she alleged that her dismissal was linked to her having made protected disclosures (whistleblowing) to her employer. Treadwell claimed automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act (ERA) 1996, asserting that she was subjected to detriments due to her disclosures. Her claims also included general unfair dismissal and a section 47B claim for detriments. 

Key Issues Determined 

The Employment Tribunal initially allowed amendments to Treadwell's claim relating to detriments suffered before her dismissal but rejected her attempt to amend the claim to include the dismissal itself as a detriment. Treadwell appealed, arguing that her dismissal could be treated as a detriment under section 47B, which permits claims of vicarious liability for dismissal against an employer based on the actions of a co-worker. 

Tribunal Findings 

The Employment Tribunal allowed two amendments to Treadwell's claim, finding that they merely "re-labelled" her allegations and did not change the substance of the case. However, the Tribunal rejected the amendment concerning the dismissal as a detriment, citing section 47B(2) of the ERA, which excludes dismissal from being treated as a detriment. The Tribunal held that the dismissal was a distinct action and could not be reclassified as a detriment under this section. 

Appeal and Decision 

Treadwell appealed the Tribunal's refusal to allow the dismissal-related amendment, and Barton Turns cross-appealed the amendments that had been allowed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in favour of Treadwell's appeal, stating that the Court of Appeal's decision in Timis and Sage v Osipov allowed for a dismissal to be treated as a detriment in cases of vicarious liability. As such, the EAT allowed the amendment. The EAT rejected Barton's cross-appeal, confirming that the earlier amendments were merely re-labelling and did not fundamentally alter the case. 

Implications for Union Representatives 

1. Whistleblowing Protections: This case reinforces that workers dismissed after making protected disclosures can seek remedies through vicarious liability claims under section 47B, even if they do not have sufficient service for standard unfair dismissal claims. 
2. Vicarious Liability: Union representatives should be aware that employers can be held liable for the actions of individual co-workers in cases involving whistleblowing-related dismissals. 

This ruling highlights the importance of protecting workers who expose wrongdoing and provides a broader scope for challenging dismissals in whistleblowing cases.