Claimant v The Haulage (Holdings) Organisation Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Whilst the claimant had made a protected disclosure and was a whistleblower with legal protection, the tribunal found that the respondent did not do those things she alleged (that were in time) because she had made disclosures
The tribunal found that those of the respondent's actions that were in time were not breaches of her contract entitling her to resign, therefore the claim for public interest disclosure automatically unfair constructive dismissal failed
The respondent's actions that were in time were not breaches of the claimant's contract entitling her to resign
The claim concerned the final instalment payment of a Finders Fee agreement. The claimant was not able to establish a contractual right to receive that final instalment
Some deduction complaints were out of time, but the last three formed part of a series of deductions the last of which was in time. The respondent unlawfully deducted £1784.19 from her wages, offset by £303.90 paid after termination
Facts
The claimant made a protected disclosure and was a whistleblower. She brought claims for detriment due to whistleblowing, automatically unfair constructive dismissal, breach of contract relating to a Finders Fee agreement, and unlawful deductions from wages. The respondent, a haulage company, defended all claims and was represented by its in-house HR Manager.
Decision
The tribunal found that while the claimant was a protected whistleblower, the respondent's actions in time were not taken because of the disclosures and did not amount to breaches justifying resignation. The contract claim for the Finders Fee failed. However, the tribunal upheld part of the unlawful deductions claim where three deductions forming a series totalling £1,784.19 less £303.90 offset amounted to an unlawful deduction of £1,480.29.
Practical note
Making a protected disclosure does not automatically mean all subsequent detrimental treatment is causally linked to the whistleblowing; the tribunal requires clear evidence that the treatment was because of the disclosure.
Award breakdown
Case details
- Case number
- 6005961/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No