Claimant v The UK Law Firm Limited

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures within the meaning of s43B ERA 1996. The alleged disclosures concerning client care letters were either not said, lacked sufficient factual content and specificity, or were not linked to breach of a legal obligation. Without protected disclosures, the claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 could not succeed.

The claimant's claim that she was dismissed for asserting a statutory right (to be paid overtime wages) under s104 ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal found that although the claimant requested overtime shortly before dismissal, this was coincidental. The respondent had previously paid overtime without issue, even more than requested, which was inconsistent with dismissing the claimant for such a request. There was no evidence connecting the overtime request to the dismissal.

The tribunal found five alleged detriments under s47B ERA 1996 were either factually incorrect, did not amount to detriments, or were unconnected to any protected disclosures. Examples included: failure to provide payslips (factually incorrect—payslips were provided except one sent late during manager's bereavement), micromanaging and workload (pattern existed before alleged disclosures), requirement to phone when arriving (pre-dated disclosures and was for Home Office sponsorship compliance), and ignoring disclosures (respondent actually responded positively).