Claimant v D R Collin & Son Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the downturn in work, the claimant's short length of service, and the fact he did not do international deliveries. The tribunal concluded the alleged protected disclosures on 12 and 15 April 2024 were not the reason for dismissal. The disclosure on 12 April about not receiving training on covering shellfish was not a protected disclosure because the claimant did not reasonably believe it showed endangerment to health and safety and it was not made in the public interest. The disclosure on 15 April about the accident was a protected disclosure, but the tribunal found it did not operate on the mind of the decision-maker when dismissing the claimant.
Facts
The claimant, an experienced driver aged 59, was employed by a fish and shellfish wholesaler. On 12 April 2024, the Managing Director told him shellfish should always be covered during transport. The claimant responded defensively, stating he had not been trained on this. On 15 April 2024, the claimant slipped entering a van and sustained a head injury requiring two weeks off work. He was dismissed on 1 May 2024 due to a downturn in work, having been employed for approximately 9 months in his second period of employment. The claimant claimed his dismissal was because he made protected disclosures about health and safety.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make protected disclosures on 12 April 2024 as alleged. The tribunal found that the disclosure on 15 April 2024 about his work accident was a protected disclosure, but that it was not the reason for dismissal. The principal reason for dismissal was the downturn in work, his short length of service, and the fact he did not perform international deliveries. The claim for automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Practical note
An employer can successfully defend an automatic unfair dismissal claim following a genuine protected disclosure if it can demonstrate that a legitimate business reason (such as redundancy due to downturn in work) was the principal reason for dismissal, not the disclosure itself.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001076/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- wholesale distribution fish
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Driver
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor