Claimant v WL Retail Ltd

The tribunal found the protected disclosures in November and December 2023 changed the working relationship, leading to disciplinary action, reduced hours, and ultimately dismissal in April 2024. The respondent's stated reasons (lateness, attitude, performance) were scant, unconvincing, historic, and not the true reasons. The dismissal was the culmination of detrimental treatment following the protected disclosures.

The claimant had not committed a repudiatory breach of contract justifying summary dismissal. Her conduct did not undermine trust and confidence to the extent that the employer was no longer required to retain her. The true reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, not the reasons given by the respondent.

The claimant made protected disclosures on 29 November and 7 December 2023 concerning unsafe working temperatures (12 degrees) and lack of heating, which she reasonably believed disclosed health and safety risks (below HSE guidance of 16 degrees) in the public interest. These were made to her employer and manager.

The disciplinary meeting on 10 January 2024 was a detriment. A reasonable employee would feel disadvantaged by a warning about conduct. The proximity in time to the protected disclosures, disparate treatment compared to other late staff, lack of training provided, and no details of Christmas party allegations indicated the protected disclosure was part of the reason for the meeting.

The respondent failed to pay the claimant any wages for April 2024 when she worked 39 hours, constituting an unlawful deduction from wages.

The respondent failed to pay the claimant for accrued but untaken holiday pay at the termination of her employment in April 2024.

The respondent breached clause 14 of the contract by failing to enroll the claimant in the NEST pension scheme after her probationary period ended on 5 August 2023, and failed to make pension payments for August, September and October 2023.