Claimant v Leather Inside Out
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant made 3 qualifying protected disclosures (PIDs 6, 8 and 9) but that the two detriments complained of were not done on the ground that he made those disclosures. The first detriment (claiming he was not an employee) was a legitimate defence based on the fact he was paid gross without PAYE deductions. The second detriment (refusing SARs) was done for reasons stated in the refusal letters: prevention/detection of crime and that requests were manifestly unfounded/excessive, based on the claimant having stolen the respondent's hard drives.
Struck out at an earlier preliminary hearing by Employment Judge Beyzade on 19 April 2022 on the grounds that the claim was not well founded
Struck out at an earlier preliminary hearing by Employment Judge Beyzade on 19 April 2022 on the grounds that the claim was not well founded
Struck out at an earlier preliminary hearing by Employment Judge Beyzade on 19 April 2022 on the grounds that the claim was not well founded
Struck out at an earlier preliminary hearing by Employment Judge Beyzade on 19 April 2022 on the grounds that the claim was not well founded
Facts
The claimant was engaged by a charity providing training and employment for ex-offenders for six months from June to December 2019. He was dismissed for breakdown in trust and confidence. The claimant alleged he made multiple whistleblowing disclosures about tax non-payment, theft, fraud and money laundering. He claimed two detriments: that the respondent falsely claimed he was not an employee, and that the respondent refused two subject access requests. The respondent did not attend the hearing and had applied to be wound up.
Decision
The tribunal found that only 3 of 8 alleged protected disclosures qualified for protection under the ERA 1996. However, both alleged detriments were not done on the ground of the protected disclosures. The employment status defence was based on genuine belief the claimant was a contractor (paid gross without PAYE). The SAR refusals were justified by the claimant having stolen the respondent's hard drives and legitimate data protection exemptions applied. All claims dismissed.
Practical note
Even where qualifying protected disclosures are established, a whistleblowing detriment claim will fail if the employer can show the detrimental acts had other legitimate explanations unconnected to the disclosures, particularly where the claimant's own conduct (such as theft of company property) provides the real reason for the treatment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2207192/2020
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No