Claimant v British Transport Police

Claimant withdrew this claim at the hearing.

The tribunal found no connection between the claimant's protected beliefs about police independence and meritocratic advancement and the termination of his secondment. The respondents acted due to concerns about reputational damage, lack of advance notification, and inaccuracies in the article, not because of his protected beliefs.

The tribunal concluded that while the claimant held protected philosophical beliefs, the adverse treatment he experienced (termination of secondment, grievance rejection) was not related to his holding or manifestation of those beliefs. The respondents' concerns were about professional conduct, not his beliefs themselves.

The tribunal found that only the grievance to the second respondent qualified as a protected act (alleging disability discrimination). However, no detriment suffered after that grievance was shown to be because of making the protected act. The Article itself was not a protected act as it did not allege a specific contravention of the Equality Act.

The tribunal accepted that both grievances contained protected disclosures (qualifying disclosures made to appropriate recipients alleging breaches of legal obligations). However, the claimant failed to demonstrate that any subsequent detriment he suffered was on the grounds of making those protected disclosures. Those handling the grievances acted independently and in good faith.

The constructive dismissal claim failed at the first stage because the tribunal found no underlying contravention of the Equality Act. Without discriminatory treatment amounting to a repudiatory breach, the resignation could not establish constructive dismissal on these grounds.