Claimant v Lidl Great Britain Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found that the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal contrary to s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded. The respondent must have shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal and acted reasonably, and the Tribunal concluded the dismissal was fair.
The claim for automatic unfair dismissal under both s.100 (health and safety) and s.103A (whistleblowing) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was not automatically unfair on either of these statutory grounds.
The complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) was not well-founded. The Tribunal determined that the claimant was not subjected to detriment on the ground of making protected disclosures.
The complaint of being subjected to detriment when she brought health and safety concerns to her employer's attention by reasonable means was dismissed. The Tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to detriment related to raising health and safety matters.
Facts
Ms Kardos was dismissed by Lidl Great Britain Limited. She brought claims alleging the dismissal was both ordinarily unfair and automatically unfair on health and safety and whistleblowing grounds. She also claimed she had been subjected to detriments for raising health and safety concerns and making protected disclosures. The case was heard over seven days split between December 2024 and March 2025.
Decision
The Tribunal unanimously dismissed all of Ms Kardos' claims. They found the dismissal was fair under s.98 ERA 1996, was not automatically unfair under either s.100 or s.103A, and that she had not been subjected to detriments for raising health and safety matters or making protected disclosures.
Practical note
A dismissal following whistleblowing and health and safety concerns will not be automatically unfair unless the tribunal finds the protected disclosures or health and safety activities were the principal reason for dismissal, which requires clear evidence of causation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3314278/2023
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister