Claimant v Birmingham City Council

Dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. Procedure was extensively flawed (lack of Terms of Reference, witness statements not provided, reliance on external investigation report without scrutiny, failure to investigate whistleblowing allegation, insufficient time given to review evidence, delays throughout). Conduct found to be minor (late disclosure of sponsorship arrangements, failure to notify re daughter's placement) but not gross misconduct. No reasonable grounds for belief in gross misconduct; investigation inadequate; dismissal not within range of reasonable responses.

Dismissing officer (Mr Kitson) had knowledge that claimant made a disclosure but not sufficient detail of it to satisfy the test in Nicol v World Travel. Tribunal concluded Mr Kitson genuinely believed claimant guilty of gross misconduct; dismissal not materially influenced by protected disclosure. No manipulation by those with fuller knowledge.

Claimant succeeded on four detriments: (1) not being provided access to emails by Mr Sahota/Ms Dhillon; (2) not being provided Terms of Reference by Mr Sahota; (3) not following disciplinary procedure by Mr Sahota; (4) not providing witness statements by Mr Sahota/Mr Farmer. All were found to be materially influenced by protected disclosure. Other alleged detriments failed because respondent showed ground not influenced by disclosure or because individuals lacked requisite knowledge of disclosure.

Tribunal found claimant made a qualifying protected disclosure on 27 November 2020 to his employer about serious concerns regarding governance, procurement, risk management and fire safety compliance in a contract managed by respondent. Disclosure tended to show criminal offences, breach of legal obligations and deliberate concealment; claimant had reasonable belief and reasonable belief it was in public interest.

Withdrawn by claimant on 14 February 2024, one week prior to hearing.