Cases6006560/2024

Claimant v ANGLO Limited

16 April 2025Before Employment Judge PostleNorwichremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Whistleblowingstruck out

The tribunal found that the alleged disclosure on 30 June 2024 regarding break lengths between the claimant and her line manager was merely a private disagreement, not a qualifying protected disclosure showing health and safety endangerment or made in the public interest. The claimant was dismissed on 17 July 2024 explicitly for performance reasons ('multiple warnings regarding performance, standard of work below expected level'), not because of any disclosure. The tribunal concluded there was no causal link between the alleged disclosure and dismissal, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

Facts

The claimant was employed on a fixed-term contract from 16 June to 30 July 2024. She was dismissed on 24 July 2024 for capability/performance reasons following multiple warnings. She successfully appealed and was reinstated on 2 August 2024, with back pay. The respondent offered her a transfer to a different site, but she declined and effectively resigned on 9 August 2024. She claimed she was dismissed for making a protected disclosure on 30 June 2024 regarding break times during a student trip to Cambridge.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the whistleblowing claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. The alleged disclosure about break lengths was a private disagreement with her line manager, not a qualifying protected disclosure about health and safety or made in the public interest. The dismissal on 17 July was explicitly for performance reasons unrelated to any disclosure, and the claimant was subsequently reinstated with full back pay.

Practical note

A private workplace disagreement about operational matters does not constitute a protected disclosure under whistleblowing legislation unless it objectively tends to show one of the specified matters in s.43B ERA 1996 and is made in the public interest.

Legal authorities cited

Ahir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392Smith v Hayle Town Council [1978] ICR 996

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.43B

Case details

Case number
6006560/2024
Decision date
16 April 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Service
2 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No