Claimant v Barracuda Catering (Park Mews) Ltd T/A North Sea Fish Restaurant

The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish he made protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. His assertions lacked specificity, did not convey information tantamount to disclosure, did not reflect a public interest concern, and he did not hold a reasonable belief that what he was reporting (alleged cannabis sales) was illegal - the employer was actually dealing in legal CBD. All alleged detriments dismissed as not proven on balance of probabilities.

Dismissal was for capability reasons arising from prolonged sickness absence. The claimant refused to engage with occupational health assessment or provide any medical evidence, suggested he would not return until February 2025 without supporting evidence, and remained unfit for work at hearing. Tribunal found dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses and followed a fair procedure given claimant's non-cooperation. Dismissal was genuine, reasonable and procedurally fair.

Claim failed because the claimant failed to establish he had made any protected disclosures. Without protected disclosures, the allegation that the principal or main reason for dismissal was whistleblowing could not succeed.

Re tips: Video and documentary evidence including WhatsApp messages clearly demonstrated the claimant received tips throughout his employment when the restaurant was open. The claim was found to be entirely misconceived and contradicted by the claimant's own recorded statements to colleagues. Re holiday pay: Ms Hester's comprehensive evidence established the claimant had been paid all accrued holiday pay correctly calculated on average hours worked. The claimant's calculation was based on a misunderstanding that he was entitled to accrue leave beyond his termination date to year end.