Claimant v Labelneeds Limited

The tribunal found that most of the alleged acts did not occur as asserted. Of those that did occur (Mr Daly's refusal to speak to colleagues, disciplinary warning without notice, failure to respond substantively to appeal), the tribunal concluded these did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The matters were not done with malign intent and were not calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship. The grievance meeting delay of two working days beyond claimant's preferred date was not unreasonable.

The tribunal found that while the claimant raised concerns about the red engine hoist, he did not make a protected disclosure. The claimant did not reasonably believe the health or safety of individuals was likely to be endangered, as evidenced by his own continued (albeit rare) use of the hoist and his failure to object to others using it. The concerns raised did not qualify as a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that even if a protected disclosure had been made, the alleged detriments either did not occur or were not because of any protected disclosure. Mr Daly's refusal to speak to colleagues was not unreasonable and not a detriment. The disciplinary warning, while procedurally flawed, was imposed due to clear misconduct (leaving site early) and not on the ground of any protected disclosure. The two-year gap between the alleged disclosure and the detriment, and the respondent's payment of full sick pay for six months, undermined any causative link.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's claim for payment for time spent going home to change from uniform, finding no obligation to go straight home and noting he could have changed at work during paid time. However, the respondent accepted that £28.14 was owed for incorrect calculation of attendance bonuses, and the tribunal ordered payment of that sum.