Claimant v B

Claim failed because no qualifying protected disclosure was made under section 43B ERA 1996. The alleged statement 'what you're doing is illegal' lacked the factual content required and constituted an allegation rather than disclosure of information. Even if a disclosure had been made, the contemporaneous evidence showed the real reason for dismissal was the Claimant's own written admissions of gross misconduct (taking Class A drugs at work) on 9 August 2023, not any alleged disclosure on 5 August.

Claim failed on jurisdictional grounds as the Claimant did not have two years' continuous service required under section 108(1) ERA 1996. Employment was only from October 2022 to August 2023 (10 months). HMRC records showed discrete employment periods rather than continuous service from 2015. Even if jurisdiction existed, dismissal was for gross misconduct (admitted drug use at work) and fell within the band of reasonable responses.

Protected disclosure detriment claims under section 47B failed because no qualifying protected disclosure was made. The alleged detriments (suspension, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal) were imposed because of the Claimant's admitted gross misconduct on 9 August 2023, not because of any protected disclosure. The causal link required under Fecitt could not be established where no protected disclosure occurred.

Harassment claims failed because the conduct was not 'unwanted' within the meaning of section 26 Equality Act 2010. The contemporaneous communications evidence spanning 2022-2023 demonstrated active, enthusiastic participation by the Claimant in sexually explicit and flirtatious exchanges. The tribunal found the Claimant retrospectively recharacterised consensual inappropriate conduct as harassment following dismissal for admitted misconduct. Applying the objective test, it was not reasonable for the conduct to have the proscribed effect given the Claimant's established pattern of willing participation.

Victimisation claims under section 27 Equality Act 2010 failed because no genuine protected act occurred. The contemporaneous evidence showed no genuine complaint about discrimination was made on 5 August 2023. The tribunal found that grievances expressed were retrospective recharacterisation of consensual conduct following dismissal for admitted misconduct. Even if the 9 August messages constituted protected acts, the subsequent detriments were caused by the misconduct admission, not any discrimination allegations.

Unlawful deduction claims failed due to lack of evidence. The Claimant acknowledged receiving substantial cash payments but could provide no reliable evidence of amounts, frequency, or purpose. The cash payment culture made it impossible to determine what wages were actually due or paid. Combined with the continuity issues and HMRC evidence showing employment elsewhere during claimed periods, the evidential failure was fatal to the wages claims.

Contract claims failed on multiple grounds. Furlough claims were directly contradicted by HMRC evidence showing the Claimant earning from other employers during 2020-2021 while claiming no income from Respondents. No employment relationship existed during the claimed furlough period. Notice pay claims failed because the Claimant committed gross misconduct (admitted Class A drug use at work) constituting repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal without notice. Other contractual claims lacked supporting evidence due to complete absence of proper documentation.

Working time claims failed due to lack of evidence and continuity issues. The Claimant's claim to have worked 70-90 hours per week was undermined by HMRC evidence showing he was simultaneously working substantial hours for other employers during periods when he claimed to be employed by the Respondents. This made his claims mathematically implausible and connected to the continuity findings showing he was working elsewhere during key periods.

Failure to provide written particulars claim failed because the Respondents provided evidence of written particulars for the final employment period commencing October 2022, which aligned with the tribunal's continuity findings. Claims relating to earlier employment periods were out of time under section 11 ERA 1996. The Claimant's challenges to document authenticity were rejected as entirely without foundation.