Claimant v Randall Parker Food Services Limited T/A Parker Fine Foods
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure. While she raised the fact that refrigeration units were broken and asked for updates, she did not raise health and safety concerns, breaches of legal obligations, or criminal offences until after she had resigned. The tribunal held there was insufficient factual content to amount to a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not intimidate or bully the claimant to backdate documents, and that Mr Buckley's statement about not needing to attend the audit was made after her resignation and was reasonable in any event. The reason for resignation was the claimant's concern about the company not being licensed to operate, not any protected disclosure.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Technical Manager at a meat processing plant from October 2021 to August 2022. She raised concerns verbally and by email on 26 July 2022 that refrigeration units on delivery vans were not working and asked for updates. The respondent had implemented workaround procedures involving ice packs and temperature monitoring. The claimant resigned on 9 August 2022, initially giving one month's notice, but later confirmed on 13 August she would not return to work. Only after resigning did she specifically raise health and safety concerns and alleged breaches of food hygiene regulations in relation to the non-refrigerated vans.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim for automatic constructive unfair dismissal. The judge found that the claimant had not made a protected disclosure because her statements about broken refrigeration units were mere reports of fact without sufficient factual content to show breaches of legal obligations, criminal offences, or health and safety risks. The specific concerns about food hygiene breaches were only raised after resignation. The tribunal also found no evidence of bullying to backdate documents, and that any statement about not attending the audit was made after resignation.
Practical note
A statement of fact reporting a problem (e.g., 'the refrigeration is broken') without explicitly raising health and safety concerns or legal breaches will not satisfy the requirement of 'sufficient factual content' to constitute a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2602175/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Technical Manager
- Service
- 10 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No