Agency worker's whistleblowing and harassment claims dismissed after short assignment

This case illustrates the difficulties faced by agency workers in bringing whistleblowing and discrimination claims, particularly when their assignment is very short. The claimant, a Housing Officer who is transgender and has autism, worked for Central Bedfordshire Council for only one month via an agency. Her assignment was terminated after a heated Teams call and subsequent emails raising concerns about safeguarding and alleging bullying.

What the tribunal considered

The tribunal examined whether the claimant's emails constituted a qualifying protected disclosure under whistleblowing law. It found that the emails did not disclose information tending to show a legal breach; rather, they were complaints about her treatment and requests for a meeting. Similarly, the harassment claims failed because the tribunal accepted the respondent's account of the events – that the Teams call was a legitimate discussion about a service user's risk assessment, and that the conversation about her name on the rota was a practical request for consistency, not harassment related to her transgender status.

What the respondent did right

The respondent had clear evidence that the claimant's assignment was terminated due to her unavailability and failure to return equipment, not because of any protected disclosure or protected characteristic. The tribunal found that the managers' actions were reasonable in the circumstances, and that the claimant's perception of harassment was not objectively justified.

Key takeaway for similar claims

This case shows that tribunals will scrutinise whether communications genuinely amount to a protected disclosure, and that short-service agency workers may struggle to prove that their treatment was linked to a protected characteristic or disclosure. It also highlights the importance of keeping clear records of the reasons for termination.