Claimant v Glasgow Prestwick Airport Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant applied for interim relief under s.128 ERA claiming automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. The Tribunal refused interim relief on the basis that the claimant did not demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at full hearing. There were doubts over whether the communications were qualifying disclosures (whether claimant subjectively and reasonably believed they tended to show breach of legal obligation or endangerment to health/safety) and whether the principal reason for dismissal was the disclosures rather than the respondent's view that claimant was an 'insider threat'. The Tribunal made no findings in fact and the substantive claim remains to be determined.
This is the underlying basis of the automatic unfair dismissal claim. Claimant alleged he made three protected disclosures (6 Nov, 16 Nov, and 23 Nov 2025) concerning aviation security breaches. The Tribunal at interim relief stage found doubt over whether these were qualifying disclosures and whether they were the principal reason for dismissal. The substantive claim remains to be determined at a full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Warehouse Operative on a fixed-term contract from 3 November 2025. Within days of starting work, he raised concerns via emails on 6 and 16 November 2025 about alleged aviation security breaches relating to unvetted agency workers handling aircraft equipment. He escalated to the Civil Aviation Authority on 23 November 2025. On 1 December 2025, after sending a letter before action alleging detriment for whistleblowing, he was summarily dismissed. The respondent stated the reason was 'some other substantial reason' due to an irreparable breakdown in trust, but later argued the claimant was identified as an 'insider threat' based on his probing questions about confidential security matters beyond his role, his limited time in post, and behavioral observations.
Decision
The Tribunal refused the application for interim relief under s.128-129 ERA 1996. The judge found that the claimant had not established a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding in his automatic unfair dismissal claim at a full hearing. There were significant doubts over whether the claimant's communications constituted qualifying protected disclosures (particularly whether he subjectively and reasonably believed they showed breach of legal obligation or endangerment), and whether the principal reason for dismissal was the disclosures rather than the respondent's insider threat concerns. The judge made no findings in fact and emphasized these were matters requiring full exploration at a final hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing dismissals require claimants to demonstrate at a summary hearing not just that disclosures were made and dismissal followed, but that there is a 'pretty good chance' the disclosures were qualifying (reasonable belief test) and were the principal reason for dismissal, even where alternative explanations (such as security concerns) are raised by the employer.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8002952/2025
- Decision date
- 7 January 2026
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Warehouse Operative
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No