Claimant v Govia Thameslink Railway Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was subjected to two detriments: suspension from driving duties from 14 April 2021 to 25 November 2021, and a plot to terminate his contract of employment based on capability ahead of an Occupational Health review where the outcome was predetermined via an email of 18 May 2021. The tribunal found these detriments were materially influenced by the 12 protected disclosures the claimant made concerning noise levels in train cabs, health and safety breaches regarding the HVAC system, and failures to report safety notices. The respondent failed to show that the treatment was not on the grounds of the protected disclosures. The tribunal found the respondent's reasons (OH restriction and stock change risk) were not genuine and that management deliberately pushed a narrative to remove the claimant from driving because of his disclosures.
Facts
The claimant, a train driver employed by Govia Thameslink Railway since March 2017, made 12 protected disclosures between June 2020 and August 2021 concerning excessive noise levels from HVAC systems in train cabs, breaches of noise regulations, and safety notice failures. Following these disclosures, the claimant was suspended from driving duties from 14 April 2021 to 25 November 2021. The respondent claimed the suspension was based on an Occupational Health report restricting him from driving certain train series due to reported stress and concentration issues, which the claimant disputed as inaccurate. Evidence showed the respondent had prior knowledge of widespread noise complaints from other drivers and instructors but failed to disclose this, and deliberately omitted the claimant's name from emails to avoid disclosure in proceedings.
Decision
The tribunal found both detriments succeeded. The suspension from driving was materially influenced by the protected disclosures, not genuinely motivated by the OH restriction and stock change risks as claimed. The tribunal found credible evidence of a 'plot' to move the claimant to a capability process based on a predetermined OH outcome, as evidenced by an email dated 18 May 2021 anticipating OH would agree the claimant's anxiety would not change, enabling medical capability proceedings. The respondent failed to refer the claimant back to OH despite his clear dispute of the report's accuracy, and key witnesses (particularly Angela Toase, Dominic Morrow, and Simon Bott) gave evasive and uncredible evidence, with documentary evidence contradicting their oral testimony.
Practical note
Employers attempting to rely on Occupational Health restrictions to remove whistleblowers from their roles must ensure those restrictions are genuinely disputed by the employee and not manipulated to engineer a capability dismissal route, particularly where management communications reveal a predetermined outcome and frustration with the employee's protected disclosures.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301939/2021
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Train driver
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister