The claimant, Mrs Faiza Rizvi, worked as chief executive officer for a medical staffing company that supplied clinical staff to the NHS. Mrs Rizvi raised concerns that both CCS and its parent company, Positive Healthcare, were “deliberately taking large sums of money out of the company” and that this was being done in breach of the shareholders agreement and to avoid tax being paid to HMRC.

The claimant subsequently attended a board meeting at which the members accused her of fraud, ordered her to resign, threatened to report her to newspapers, blocked access to her company email account, disconnected her mobile and threatened to dismiss her.

“The company considers you to be, amongst other things, guilty of fraudulent behaviour, dishonesty and to have brought the company into disrepute. Your employment will terminate with immediate effect, without notice or payment in lieu of notice and with no liability to make any further payment to you…”

The tribunal held the respondent automatically unfairly dismissed the claimant because she had made protected disclosures under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (NI equivalent is Article 134A of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996). The judge held the respondent company “simply wished to dismiss her, come what may.” The Chairman had acted in an “unreasonable and oppressive way” and did not provide any evidence of a fair reason for dismissal.

The tribunal recognised that there is public interest in companies being correctly run according to their contractual legal obligations. Furthermore, on the facts, the respondent failed to follow any fair procedure. It did not invite her to a disciplinary hearing, it did not provide her with evidence in advance of any hearing, it did not provide her with any witness statements relating to her alleged wrong doing, and it did not offer the claimant any right of appeal.

The claimant was dismissed owing to the fact that she had made a number of protected disclosures, which in turn led to a number of detriments, all of which had a serious effect on her emotional state.

Mrs Rizvi was awarded £48,512.59 in compensation for unfair dismissal, and £8,761 for injury to feelings as a result of protected disclosure detriments. The judge said that whilst many of the acts were associated with the dismissal and took place over a short period of time, the appropriate award was at the very top of the bottom Vento band. A maximum uplift of 25% was deemed appropriate owing to a serious breach of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c65592140f0b676d487d086/Mrs_F_Rizvi_-v-_Capital_Care_Services__UK__Ltd_-_Case_Number_2201925_2018_-_Full.pdf