Claimant v Alsico Laucuba Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant decided to leave on or around 03 October 2023 and started applying for jobs from that date. The alleged breaches (respondent's handling of health and safety concerns raised in July 2023) were not found to be repudiatory breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent had engaged with and investigated the issues raised. Even if the tribunal accepted the later date of 05 February 2024, the tribunal found no fundamental breach and concluded the claimant resigned because he had secured alternative employment starting 01 March 2024, not due to any breach by the respondent.
The tribunal found that the email of 19 July 2023 (PID3) and the grievance of 08 October 2023 (PID5) were qualifying disclosures under s.43B ERA. The claimant had a reasonable belief that he was disclosing information in the public interest that tended to show health and safety of individuals had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. However, the tribunal found that the email of 20 July 2023 (PID4), the email of 13 September 2023 (PID4A), the disclosure of 26 October 2023 (PID6), and the letter of 22 January 2024 (PID7) were not qualifying disclosures.
The tribunal found that none of the three alleged detriments succeeded. (1) Not being permitted places at the Christmas party on 02 October 2023: the claimant missed the booking deadline and the party was full. This was not a detriment and was not done on the ground of protected disclosures. (2) Being forced into a meeting on 01 February 2024 with Mrs Rogers: the tribunal found this was not a detriment but a constructive HR discussion to explain why the letter of 22 January 2024 did not fall within the whistleblowing policy. (3) Being invited to an investigation meeting on 05 February 2024: the tribunal found this was not a detriment as it was a reasonable response to behavioral concerns raised by Mrs Rogers about the claimant's conduct in the meeting of 01 February 2024, and was not done on the ground of protected disclosures.
Facts
The claimant worked as a warehouse operative for the respondent from October 2017 to February 2024. He raised various health and safety concerns in July 2023 and subsequently, including issues with fire safety routes, lighting, shelving, PPE and lack of supervision. He raised a grievance in October 2023 which he later withdrew, though the respondent continued to investigate. In January 2024 he wrote a letter raising concerns about treatment of another worker. On 01 February 2024 he had a meeting with HR which became heated, leading to an investigation into his conduct. He resigned on 13 February 2024 with 2.5 weeks' notice and started new employment on 01 March 2024. He claimed constructive dismissal and whistleblowing detriments.
Decision
The tribunal found that two of the claimant's disclosures (19 July 2023 and 08 October 2023) were qualifying protected disclosures, but that none of the alleged detriments succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had decided to leave the respondent's employment by October 2023 and was actively seeking alternative employment from that date. The respondent had engaged with and investigated the health and safety concerns raised. The claimant resigned because he had secured alternative employment, not due to any fundamental breach of contract by the respondent. All claims were dismissed.
Practical note
A claimant who decides to leave employment and actively seeks alternative work over several months will struggle to establish constructive dismissal, even where protected disclosures have been made, if the employer has genuinely engaged with concerns raised and the resignation is timed to coincide with securing new employment rather than in response to a fundamental breach.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2402346/2024
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Warehouseman / Warehouse Operative
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No