Claimant v Hartlepool College of Further Education

Tribunal found the detriment complaint was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it within the primary three-month limit. Claimant had union representation, all necessary information by 27 March 2023, and was not incapacitated. No explanation given for 10-month delay.

Tribunal found the claimant was subjected to disciplinary process not because of his protected disclosure about E. coli, but because of his behaviour towards staff and his unco-operative attitude. The Every system entry did not materially influence the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings or the outcome. The decision makers had no health and safety concerns about the non-pathogenic K12 E. coli.

Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy, not the protected disclosure. The disclosure was made in January 2023, 5 months before redundancy programme began and 8 months before dismissal. Decision makers had no significant involvement in earlier disciplinary matter. The role was not replaced and requirement for the role had genuinely diminished following completion of capital projects.

Tribunal found the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as the reason for dismissal. There was a genuine redundancy situation (voluntary redundancy scheme preceding compulsory redundancies), fair consultation process, legitimate business reasons for role being surplus to requirements, and proper consideration of alternatives including redeployment. Claimant occupied a self-selecting pool of one.