Claimant v Thrive Teviot House Nursery Day Care of Children

This was a preliminary hearing on interim relief only. The tribunal did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim but found the claimant did not meet the high threshold for interim relief - a 'pretty good chance of success' - because key facts remain in dispute and require a full hearing.

The tribunal found significant factual disputes about whether the claimant was constructively dismissed or voluntarily resigned after accepting a new contract at lower pay. The claimant claimed duress; the respondent said it was voluntary. This requires evidence at a full hearing.

The tribunal found the claimant had not demonstrated a 'pretty good chance' of proving automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. There were doubts whether his disclosures about safeguarding, hand hygiene, mobile phone use and fire risks constituted protected disclosures within s.43B ERA 1996, and whether dismissal was causally linked to them.

The tribunal identified several obstacles to the whistleblowing claim: uncertainty whether the disclosures fell within s.43B(1) categories; whether the claimant disclosed information (not mere allegations); whether he reasonably believed disclosures were in the public interest; and causation. All require full evidential examination.

The claimant alleged sex discrimination in his claim form but provided no detail or submissions on this at the interim relief hearing. The tribunal did not address it substantively, and it remains to be determined at a full hearing.

The tribunal refused the application for interim relief under s.129 ERA 1996. The claimant failed to demonstrate a 'pretty good chance of success' - a high threshold approaching certainty rather than mere probability - due to disputed facts, uncertainty whether disclosures were protected, and unclear causation.