Claimant v R1

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures. The complaints made by the claimant about the restructure process, including allegations of bullying and harassment, did not amount to disclosures of information in the public interest tending to show a relevant failure under section 43B ERA. The tribunal rejected all six alleged protected disclosures.

The claim of protected disclosure detriment under section 47B(1) ERA was not well-founded because the tribunal found that the claimant had not made qualifying protected disclosures. Without qualifying disclosures, the detriment claim could not succeed.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA failed because the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was not that the claimant had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal found that the claimant had not made qualifying protected disclosures, and even if he had, the dismissal was for other reasons (conduct and/or some other substantial reason relating to the breakdown in trust and confidence following unjustified allegations against managers).

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA was not well-founded. The tribunal found that the dismissal was fair on grounds of conduct and/or some other substantial reason. The respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's conduct (making unjustified allegations of criminal harassment), conducted a reasonable investigation, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 EQA failed. The respondents did not accept that the claimant was disabled at the relevant times and disputed knowledge of any disability. The tribunal found that the treatment complained of was not because of disability.

The discrimination arising in consequence of disability claim under section 15 EQA was not well-founded. The respondents disputed that the claimant was disabled and had knowledge of disability at the relevant times. The tribunal found that the respondents' actions were not because of something arising in consequence of the claimant's disability.