Claimant v Sole Bay Fish Company Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found only two communications (22 March email and May conversation) were protected disclosures. None of the alleged detriments were found to have occurred as alleged, or if they did, they were not causally linked to the protected disclosures. The resignation was due to a power struggle and breakdown in relationship, not the disclosures.
The complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was not well founded. The tribunal found that most of the alleged detriments did not occur as alleged, or where they did occur, they did not amount to detriments and were not done on the ground of the protected disclosure.
The complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well founded. The tribunal found the claimant resigned because of a power struggle in decision making and breakdown of working relationship with the second respondent, not because of the protected disclosures made in March email or May conversation.
The complaint of failure to provide an initial statement of particulars of employment was well founded. The tribunal found the claimant did not receive an offer letter or contract at the start of employment or at any time thereafter. However, no award could be made as the claimant did not succeed in the other claims before the tribunal.
Withdrawn by claimant at case management hearing after the issue about holiday pay had been resolved.
Facts
The claimant was employed from September 2021 to August 2022 (resigned without notice) as Team Support Manager, later Operations Manager, at a restaurant/fishmongers. He raised concerns in March 2023 email about licensing breaches and in May 2023 conversation about food safety/environmental health matters. The working relationship deteriorated, particularly around reopening of Kitchen 1 after fire damage. Claimant alleged he was undermined, subjected to detriments, and constructively dismissed for whistleblowing. He was not provided with an employment contract.
Decision
The tribunal found only two communications were protected disclosures (March 2023 email on licensing, May 2023 conversation on food safety). However, the tribunal found most alleged detriments did not occur as alleged or, where they did, were not causally linked to the disclosures. The claimant resigned due to a power struggle and relationship breakdown, not the disclosures. Claims for whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal failed. Failure to provide written particulars succeeded but no award made as other claims failed.
Practical note
A claimant must prove both that protected disclosures were made and that alleged detriments actually occurred as pleaded and were materially influenced by those disclosures; resignation due to broader relationship breakdown rather than specific disclosures will not establish constructive dismissal for whistleblowing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311401/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Team Support Manager (later Operations Manager)
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister