Claimant v Skanska Plc

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a qualifying protected disclosure. The claimant's references to lack of training and security concerns amounted to voicing concerns rather than a disclosure of information. The tribunal could not identify any disclosure relating to breach of Base Security Orders or Joint Service Personnel Orders regarding required qualifications for escorts/chaperones.

In the absence of any protected disclosure, the detriment claim failed. Even if there had been a protected disclosure, there was no link between the alleged detriments and any disclosure. Mr Foley's comments were made because he believed the claimant had failed to comply with a reasonable request, not because of any alleged disclosure.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A failed because no protected disclosure was made. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability/ill-health, not any protected disclosure.

The alleged PCP requiring employees to attend meetings on site at Northwood was not established. The respondent used telephone and Teams meetings. There was nothing to alert the respondent that the claimant would be disadvantaged by being escorted to meetings, and the claimant never mentioned this concern.

The dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to follow its own capability procedure. The claimant was not given proper procedural steps including explicit written warnings that termination was a real possibility, formal review meetings, or opportunity to be accompanied. This pushed the dismissal outside the band of reasonable responses despite the substantive reason (capability/ill-health) being potentially fair.