Claimant v ICTS UK and Ireland
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent asserts claimant does not have necessary length of service. Matter not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Tribunal found no protected disclosure was made prior to dismissal on 9 May 2025. The Subject Access Request (16 May) and complaints to regulatory authorities were made after dismissal. The tribunal was not satisfied it is likely the reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure.
Application for interim relief dismissed. No evidence of any protected disclosure made to employer before dismissal. Email of 9 May 2025 showed dismissal was because respondent believed claimant failed vetting process, not due to any disclosure.
Claim for arrears of pay made in claim form. Respondent states all wages due have been paid. Matter not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Claim for holiday pay made in claim form. Respondent asserts holiday pay has been paid. Matter not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Facts
Claimant was employed from 22 April to 9 May 2025, dismissed during probation on grounds he failed security vetting. He asserted the vetting was mishandled and his school confirmed it never received a vetting request. He subsequently made a Subject Access Request and complaints to the Civil Aviation Authority. The respondent discovered an administrative error had occurred in uploading reference dates but maintained the dismissal as they had onboarded too many employees and needed to reduce intake numbers.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief because the claimant had not made any protected disclosure before his dismissal on 9 May 2025. The Subject Access Request and complaints to regulatory authorities were made after dismissal and therefore could not be the reason for it. There was evidence the dismissal was because the respondent believed he had failed vetting, not due to any disclosure.
Practical note
For an interim relief application in a whistleblowing dismissal claim to succeed, the alleged protected disclosure must have been made before the dismissal occurred; post-dismissal complaints cannot form the basis of a s.103A ERA claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302637/2025
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No