Claimant v OCS Security Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Interim relief application refused. Tribunal found claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of showing dismissal was principally because of alleged protected disclosure of 6 March 2025. Substantial contemporaneous evidence supported respondent's case that dismissal was for gross misconduct (being off route during assault incident, unauthorised activity, inconsistent accounts). Claimant provided no rational basis for causation beyond proximity in time. Additionally, tribunal doubted claimant had reasonable belief in health and safety breach or legal obligation breach, meaning alleged disclosure may not qualify as protected.
Facts
Claimant was a Mobile Security Supervisor dismissed on 22 June 2025 after three years' service. On 26/27 January 2025 he was assaulted during what respondent alleges was unauthorised activity off his designated patrol route on Robert Street. On 6 March 2025 claimant sent email alleging health and safety breaches which he relied on as protected disclosure. Respondent investigated and dismissed for gross misconduct, finding claimant was not working, was repeatedly off route, and gave inconsistent accounts. Claimant applied for interim relief and brought second consolidated claim in Watford tribunal including disability discrimination and other claims.
Decision
Interim relief application refused. Tribunal found claimant had no rational basis for showing protected disclosure was principal reason for dismissal, particularly given substantial contemporaneous evidence supporting gross misconduct rationale. Additionally, tribunal doubted claimant could show reasonable belief that disclosure tended to show health and safety breach or legal obligation breach. On summary assessment, tribunal considered claim unlikely to succeed at full hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief will be refused where the respondent presents substantial contemporaneous evidence of a non-whistleblowing reason for dismissal and the claimant relies solely on temporal proximity without establishing a rational causal link between disclosure and dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6023760/2025
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Mobile Security Supervisor
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep