Claimant v United Parcel Service Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application under s.103A ERA 1996 for whistleblowing dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant likely to establish qualifying disclosures about vehicle safety but not likely (applying the 'pretty good chance' test) to prove the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures rather than absence during probation. Application dismissed; full merits hearing to follow.
The tribunal accepted the claimant was likely to prove he made qualifying disclosures about unsafe vehicle conditions (dirty windows impairing visibility) which were made in the public interest and tended to show breach of health and safety obligations. However, the interim relief application was dismissed as the claimant did not meet the higher threshold of showing a 'pretty good chance' of proving causation at full hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a driver employed for less than two months during his probationary period, was summarily dismissed on 6 August 2025 allegedly due to absence from work. He had been off sick for approximately two and a half weeks with legitimate sickness. Prior to dismissal, he had raised concerns about vehicle safety, particularly dirty windows impairing visibility, through oral complaints, daily Car Condition Forms, and a detailed email to HR on 18 July 2025. The dismissal decision was made by his supervisor Mr Foy in consultation with HR and the Business Manager.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was likely to establish that he made qualifying protected disclosures about vehicle safety under s.43B ERA 1996. However, applying the 'pretty good chance of success' test required for interim relief under Taplin, the tribunal was not satisfied the claimant was likely to prove that the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures rather than his sickness absence during probation. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.
Practical note
Interim relief applications for whistleblowing dismissals require claimants to meet the higher 'pretty good chance of success' threshold, not merely the balance of probabilities, and credible alternative explanations for dismissal (even if potentially unfair) will defeat such applications even where qualifying disclosures are established.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6029769/2025
- Decision date
- 4 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- driver
- Service
- 2 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No