Claimant v Glenshire Brands (1) Ltd

Claimant resigned on 10 May 2024, three days before making the protected disclosure on 13 May 2024. The resignation letter expressed gratitude and satisfaction, contradicting his later assertion that he resigned due to breach of contract following a protected disclosure. Tribunal found claimant resigned to move on, not due to any breach by respondent.

Tribunal found claimant's resignation letter of 10 May 2024 contradicted his evidence that he resigned due to respondent's breach. His letter expressed gratitude and confirmed he had thoroughly enjoyed his time. Resignation preceded the protected disclosure of 13 May 2024. No fundamental breach of contract established.

Claimant's statement on 10 May 2024 about a form signed under his name lacked sufficient detail and information to constitute a protected disclosure. However, his written appeal of 13 May 2024 identifying the falsified signature on a fire safety document dated 10 February 2024 did constitute a protected disclosure of a breach of legal obligation.

Tribunal found falsification of signature occurred before the protected disclosure on 13 May and thus could not be a detriment arising from it. Respondent did investigate and acknowledge the falsified signature, corrected records, and retrained staff. Claimant was not subjected to detriment because he raised the disclosure; rather respondent took it seriously and rectified matters.

Contract clearly stated 'use it or lose it' policy for annual leave with no carry-forward or payment in lieu. Claimant was aware of this provision and accepted it. He did not take his 21 hours' accrued leave before the leave year ended on 31 March 2024. Holiday pay was not 'properly payable' under section 13(3) ERA 1996 as it expired per contractual terms.

Claimant's contract provided that holiday not taken by end of leave year would be forfeited with no payment in lieu. Claimant failed to take 21 hours before 31 March 2024. Tribunal found contract clear and unambiguous, claimant was aware of policy, and his complaint that he was not reminded does not create entitlement to payment.

Claimant complained respondent failed to permit him to take annual leave at appropriate time contrary to Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998. Tribunal found claimant was contractually entitled to leave, was aware of procedures and handbook, and failed to request leave. No breach by respondent established.