UT UA-2024-000745-V - [2025] UKUT 129 (AAC)

We accept that SLS was a whistle blower when she worked at Property X. The person she reported for theft was moved to another property, avoided coming to any disciplinary hearings, and eventually resigned. We accept that this is why SLS thought she might be offered the chance to move when she sent her resignation to GD.

We accept that other members of staff can make life difficult, even unpleasant or unbearable, for a person who is identified as a whistle blower. This is especially so when the person reported is a friend of other members of staff. We therefore accept that there was animosity between CM and SLS. We have to consider the possibility that this may have influenced what CM said about SLS’s behaviour.

We do not accept that there was a conspiracy between the staff whose evidence we have seen. This is implausible. It would require CM to have persuaded three other members of staff to support her. Of the three, JWa was a friend of CM and both had worked at Property X. She was also reluctant to engage with SLS when CM was around. However, by SLS’s own account at the hearing, JWa was pleasant to her when CM was not around. This does not sound like someone who has a personal animosity towards SLS or any reason to invent allegations about her. As to SD, we know of no reason why he might have been willing to join a conspiracy against SLS. She has criticised the evidence he gave, but only because JW was not reliable. That is not a reason for conspiring to cause trouble for her. As to LA, he was a new member of staff who professed himself reluctant to talk to others about what he witnessed. As an outsider, LA would be less susceptible than others to influence and less likely to have any personal animosity against SLS. He is the closest we have to an independent observer of events and reporter of the conversation with JW.

Having rejected the conspiracy, there is no reason to doubt what CM has said, because it is consistent with the evidence of JWa, SD and LA.