Claimant v London Underground Limited

Outcome

Facts

The claimant, a customer services manager employed since 2001, raised concerns between June and August 2021 that his manager (Mr Persaud) had breached health and safety procedures by requiring a clinically vulnerable colleague (Person A) to work at a station where there was a Covid-19 outbreak. Person A subsequently contracted Covid-19 and died in July 2021. The claimant made disclosures via the attendance management system, in conversations with Mr Persaud, and via the respondent's confidential whistleblowing hotline (CIRAS). He claimed he then suffered four detriments: a threat to his job, denial of acting up opportunities, mischaracterisation of his concerns as a 'personality clash' in an occupational health referral, and denial of professional development funding.

Decision

The tribunal found that all four disclosures were protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. However, three of the four alleged detriments were not made out on the facts. The fourth detriment (the use of the phrase 'personality clash' in an OH referral) did occur, but the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that this was not done because the claimant had made protected disclosures—rather, it was Mr Persaud's genuine attempt to describe the breakdown in their working relationship on a form required to facilitate the claimant's return to work. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Practical note

Legal authorities cited