Claimant v London Central Transport Services Limited t/a Go Ahead London

The tribunal found the dismissal was fair. The respondent had reasonable grounds to believe the claimant made a false grievance in bad faith, knowing it to be untrue. The respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, followed a fair procedure, and the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant had been on a final written warning and his conduct undermined trust and confidence.

The tribunal found the claimant did not make a qualifying protected disclosure because he did not have a reasonable belief it was made in the public interest. His sole motivation was to cause trouble for a colleague (KS), not to raise a genuine data breach concern. The tribunal also found the claimant did not actually receive the email he claimed to have received, so his belief was not reasonable.

The claimant alleged three protected disclosures regarding GDPR breaches. The tribunal found that while taken together the emails amounted to a disclosure of information, the claimant's sole motivation was to cause trouble for KS (a manager who had previously disciplined him), not the public interest. Additionally, the tribunal found the claimant did not actually receive the original email as he claimed, making his belief unreasonable. Therefore, no qualifying protected disclosure was made.

Six detriments were claimed. The first three (relating to grievance process and disciplinary referral in April 2024) were out of time and also found not to be detriments or unjustified grievances. The fourth and fifth (alleged unfair disciplinary and appeal processes) were factually rejected - the tribunal found both processes were fair. The sixth (upholding dismissal) was a detriment but not caused by any protected disclosure; it was caused by the respondent's conclusion that the claimant had made a false allegation in bad faith.

The claimant claimed 8 weeks' notice pay. The respondent established the claimant acted in bad faith by raising an allegation he knew to be untrue, which undermined trust and confidence. This constituted gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal without notice. The tribunal found the respondent was entitled to dismiss summarily.