Cases6002481/2023

Claimant v Sofina Foods Ltd

26 June 2025Before Employment Judge BrainSheffieldin person

Outcome

Partly successful£1,887

Individual claims

Whistleblowingfailed

The tribunal found that while the claimant made protected disclosures about staff handling bacon without gloves and dress code violations, the reason or principal reason for her dismissal was not these whistleblowing disclosures. The claim under section 103A ERA 1996 therefore failed.

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found that the respondent summarily dismissed the claimant on 8 August 2023 and this dismissal was unfair under sections 94-98 ERA 1996. The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. However, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event by 25 September 2023 (Polkey). The claimant also contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, resulting in significant reductions to both awards.

Facts

The claimant was employed by the second respondent in food manufacturing. She was summarily dismissed on 8 August 2023. Prior to dismissal, she had made disclosures to management about staff handling bacon without wearing gloves and staff violating the dress code. The tribunal found these were protected disclosures as they related to health and safety concerns and were reasonably believed to be in the public interest. However, the claimant also engaged in blameworthy conduct that contributed to her dismissal.

Decision

The tribunal found the whistleblowing dismissal claim failed as the protected disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. However, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code on disciplinary procedures. The awards were heavily reduced: a Polkey reduction reflected that fair dismissal would have occurred 7 weeks later anyway, a 75% contributory conduct reduction reflected the claimant's blameworthy actions, but a 15% ACAS uplift was applied for the procedural failures. Both basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 75% for conduct.

Practical note

Even where protected disclosures are established, a whistleblowing dismissal claim will fail if the disclosures were not the reason for dismissal; however, serious procedural failures can still render an ordinary unfair dismissal, though substantial contributory conduct and Polkey reductions may leave minimal compensation.

Award breakdown

Basic award£968
Compensatory award£919

Adjustments

Polkey reduction100%

The claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event with an effective date of termination 25 September 2023, approximately 7 weeks after the actual dismissal date

Contributory fault75%

The claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, resulting in a 75% reduction to the compensatory award

ACAS uplift+15%

The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 ss.94-98TULRCA 1992 s.207AERA 1996 s.43B

Case details

Case number
6002481/2023
Decision date
26 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No