The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Case Summary

The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of protected disclosure detriment and disability discrimination, stating that they had no jurisdiction to consider the former due to being presented out of time.

The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the protected disclosure detriment complaint because it was presented out of time. The disability discrimination complaint was dismissed on its merits.

• •jurisdiction to consider complaints of protected disclosure detriment presented out of time
• •protected disclosure detriment claims
• •disability discrimination claims

RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No: 2407430/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss D Burns Respondent: The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Heard at: Manchester On: 12-15 May 2025 and 18-21 August 2025 (21 August 2025 in chambers) Before: Employment Judge Slater Ms M T Dowling Mr P Dobson Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr D Jones, counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the complaints of protected disclosure detriment, which were presented out of time. REASONS Summary 1. The claimant is a police officer who has served with Greater Manchester Police (GMP) since 2004. She remains engaged as a police officer but has not attended work since 2 July 2020. The claimant had a period of sick leave which began on 3 December 2018 before a brief return to work in or around June 2020. The claimant understands that administrative records currently show her as being on sick leave, but she has not submitted a certificate of sickness since December 2019. 2. The claimant made what she asserts to be a protected disclosure to a senior police officer on 17 May 2019, including allegations of corruption within GMP. The RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No: 2407430/2023 2 claimant does not believe her allegations were investigated. She was referred to occupational health, which resulted in a diagnosis of delusional disorder, following information provided to GMP’s psychiatrist by GMP, that the claimant was not under surveillance. A second consultant psychiatrist, in the NHS, made the same diagnosis having received a similar assurance from GMP. The claimant’s GP does not believe that the claimant is suffering from delusional disorder. 3. The claimant, after attempting other means of redress, brought complaints of protected disclosure detrime…