Claimant v Great Harvest Foods Ltd

The claimant failed to prove he made any of the alleged protected disclosures identified at the preliminary hearing. His witness statement did not address the disclosures set out in the case management order, he provided no specific details or evidence of when or how such disclosures were made, and his numerous WhatsApp messages to the respondent contained no reference to any public interest disclosures. The tribunal found the claimant did not make any protected disclosures and therefore could not succeed on automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996.

The tribunal found the claimant did not make qualifying disclosures. He failed to provide evidence of disclosures about VAT non-payment, lack of accounting records, or health and safety training failures identified at the case management hearing. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that no such oral disclosures were made, and noted the absence of any reference to disclosures in the claimant's contemporaneous WhatsApp messages or his message on 22 November 2024 demanding unpaid wages.

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct: accepting client payments of £1,435 directly into his personal bank account without authorization. This amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract that entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice. The tribunal accepted the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had misappropriated company funds.

The claimant's claim for one week's notice pay failed because the tribunal found his conduct (receiving client money into his personal account without authorization) amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. This repudiatory breach entitled the respondent to terminate without notice or payment in lieu.

The respondent deducted £1,435 from the claimant's final wages relating to money the client had paid into the claimant's personal bank account. The respondent admitted there was no written contract clause permitting such deduction and no prior written consent from the claimant. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument of an implied contractual term permitting clawback. As the deduction did not meet the statutory requirements under s.13 ERA 1996, it was unlawful.

The claimant produced no evidence in his witness statement, oral testimony, or documents to support a claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. He failed to specify what holiday he took during his two-month employment. In the absence of the claimant proving his claim, the tribunal found no holiday pay was due under the Working Time Regulations 1998.