A Dumbarton food bank ordered to pay £8,000 in compensation to an ex-worker says it's pleased with the decision not to give her the £48,000 they claim she asked for.
Food For Thought was instructed to give former project coordinator Caroline Marsland the cash after an employment tribunal ruled her dismissal was procedurally unfair.
She took the charity to court after losing her job in 2019, claiming it was a result of her complaints about a married priest having a relationship with a 'vulnerable' member of his congregation, the Lennox Herald reports.
However, judge Frances Eccles found the decision was not taken as a result of her allegations against the clergyman, but found proper procedures hadn't been followed when she was let go.
The charity, which provides emergency food parcels to struggling residents across West Dunbartonshire, said the payout was "not welcomed", but insists it is pleased with the tribunal outcome, saying it "allowed a lot of false claims and inaccuracies to be quashed".
A charity spokesperson commented: "Food For Thought is pleased with the outcome of the tribunal process.
"As an organisation, we were unaware of the statutory rights of self-employed workers and did not know the process that should have been followed.
"We have always maintained that the decision made was in good faith and in the best interests of our financial situation to feed the most needy in our community.
"We are pleased that the tribunal judge rejected the claims of the claimant that there may have been any other reason for dismissal and that the entirety of our witnesses were truthful and accurate.
"While the compensation of £8,000 is not welcomed during the worst cost of living crisis we have seen, there has been a contingency fund in place since the tribunal started, we are pleased that the claimant has failed in their attempt to take £48,000 from a food bank.
"We wish to thank the tribunal for their part in due process and their ruling which allowed a lot of false claims and inaccuracies to be quashed."
At the time, the food bank operated from the community hall of St Augustine's Scottish Episcopal Church in Dumbarton High Street and the priest was chairman of the charity's committee.
The clergyman, referred to as 'DE' in the judgement, also told the Lennox Herald the claims about a relationship are false.
He said he still wishes to retain his anonymity and added: "Somebody has sued the food bank for compensation and has taken £8,000 from the mouths of hungry people.
"I feel sorry for Food For Thought and St Augustine's that they have been trawled through the muck over an allegation that's seriously untrue."
The employment tribunal, held in Glasgow in February, heard Mrs Marsland was unhappy that the clergyman was allowed to return to work after it was alleged he had a 'relationship' with the woman, referred to as AB.
According to the judgement, the allegations came to light after the unnamed woman's partner complained to the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway in June 2018.
The tribunal heard: "[Mrs Marsland] was shocked by the complaint against DE. She had strong views about DE as a married man having a relationship with a client.
"She considered the client to be a vulnerable adult.
"She felt protective towards AB. She felt let down by DE.
"She was angry and upset. She felt disgusted."
Around a week after the complaint was made, Mrs Marsland met with DE and his wife at the suggestion of charity committee member Reverend Liz O'Ryan, but the meeting 'did not go well'.
The Diocese launched an investigation, with the outcome resulting in the priest being allowed to return to the church and his duties.
Mrs Marsland said it was her intention to resign from the charity and during another meeting with DE, suggested he stand down as chairman.
DE however said she was 'causing division in the church' and suggested that 'as she was thinking of leaving anyway it was time for her to find another job'.
While signed off with work-related stress, Mrs Marsland confided all she knew in a friend, who was a member of the church vestry, despite requests to keep the information confidential.
She returned to work in December 2018 and was told she would be made redundant the following month, with the charity saying it had decided to use volunteers instead of paid employees.
They said there were concerns over whether there would be enough forthcoming funds to pay for wages but mistakenly believed Mrs Marsland was self-employed, according to the hearing.
The former worker claimed the real reason was because she had discussed the claims with her friend.
Employment Judge Frances Eccles found the dismissal lacked a 'fair procedure' as she was not considered an employee with employment protection rights but ruled her disclosures were not the principal reason behind her losing her job.
In a letter of appeal, Mrs Marsland stated her employment was terminated because she 'could not conspire in allowing DE to continue to be involved with [the charity]'.
The Judge said she accepted the evidence of witnesses, including Reverend Liz O'Ryan.
She said: "The tribunal was persuaded that Reverend Liz O'Ryan was taken aback by the claimant's behaviour towards DE and her level of anger.
"The tribunal found that the claimant had a tendency to overstate events and to see them solely from her own perspective."
She adds: "[She] was entitled to disagree with the outcome of the investigation.
"She was entitled to feel that it was contrary to her moral principles.
"This was not sufficient however, to persuade the tribunal that she held a reasonable belief that the information disclosed to [her friend] tended to show that the health and safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered."
The Judge added that the respondent was however unable to show that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy and therefore found it was unfair.
She explained: "At the time of dismissing the claimant, the respondent did not recognise that the claimant was an employee with employment protection rights including the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
"There was no warning or consultation. There was no consideration given to the possibility of alternative work or other steps to avoid dismissal, including part time work. The respondent did not dispute that the claimant's dismissal lacked fair procedure."
Mrs Marsland told the Lennox Herald: "I do not wish to comment at this time."
