Claimant v West Atlantic UK Limited

The claimant alleged rostering detriment after reporting an Aberdeen incident. The tribunal found no public interest disclosure was made, and crucially, even if there had been, causation could not be established because the claimant was complaining about rostering in exactly the same way before and after the purported disclosure. The incident had already been logged in the respondent's incident management system, investigated, reported to the CAA with no issues found, making retaliation implausible.

Multiple allegations failed because the claimant led no or no relevant evidence. Key failures included: alleging colleagues did not respond to an email they were never sent; claiming rostering differences without providing evidence or cross-examining witnesses; naming comparators who lived abroad or providing no evidence about them; and alleging failure to conduct a stress risk assessment that was never required by occupational health. The claimant could not shift the burden of proof on any allegation.

The claimant failed to provide any evidence of how the alleged behaviours violated his dignity or created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Specific allegations included: grievance rejection (reasonably investigated with no discriminatory motive); stress risk assessment (never required); removal from base training in 2023 (claimant always knew he lacked required medical clearance from CAA); failure to get CAA dispensation (claimant knew no exceptions applied); alleged roster agreement (meeting notes showed no such agreement was made); words attributed to Mr Heenan (claimant called no witnesses who were present); and rostering complaints with no supporting evidence or cross-examination.