Claimant v Baker Hughes Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found conduct was the reason for dismissal. The claimant admitted downloading 486 documents including confidential materials to his personal email and failing to disclose his directorship of Naptavaus Ltd. The tribunal concluded the Burchell test was satisfied, a fair procedure was followed, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses for a reasonable employer.
The tribunal found, with hesitation, that the claimant had made a qualifying protected disclosure regarding a tender proposal. However, there was no causal connection between the disclosure and dismissal. The decision-maker (Mr Morrison) was unaware of the alleged disclosure, there was no evidence of collusion, and the claimant never alleged whistleblowing during the disciplinary process. The complaint appeared to be an afterthought.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after downloading 486 documents including confidential materials to his personal email address the day before a prior disciplinary hearing where he received a final written warning (for unrelated matters). He admitted downloading the documents fearing dismissal and to help his future career. It also emerged he failed to disclose his directorship of a dormant limited company (Naptavaus Ltd) as required by the respondent's Conflict of Interest Policy. The claimant alleged he was actually dismissed for making a protected disclosure about refusing to amend a tender proposal.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed both claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found conduct was the genuine reason for dismissal, the Burchell test was satisfied, a comprehensive and fair procedure was followed, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses given the seriousness of downloading confidential documents. The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because there was no causal connection between any protected disclosure and dismissal—the decision-maker was unaware of the alleged disclosure and the claimant never raised whistleblowing during the disciplinary process.
Practical note
Even where an employee has made a protected disclosure, dismissal will be fair if the employer can demonstrate a genuine, separate reason (such as gross misconduct) supported by reasonable investigation, belief, and procedure, with no causal link to the disclosure.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001095/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Sales Technician Manager
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No