Claimant v Carbon Rewind Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that although the claimant made one protected disclosure (witnessing a customer lock a vulnerable child in a car with a dog), the claimant failed to prove that this was the principal reason for his dismissal. The employer had previously responded supportively to earlier concerns by providing training and assistance. The tribunal concluded the dismissal was for capability reasons, not the protected disclosure, and the claimant could provide no reason why the employer would be motivated to dismiss him for that particular disclosure.
Facts
The claimant worked as a surveyor for one month. He raised concerns about workload, working excessive hours beyond his 40-hour contract, and safety issues including being bitten by a dog and witnessing a customer lock a child in a car with a dog. He sent a detailed email on 14 March 2024 outlining these concerns. The following day, the managing director dismissed him by phone, stating his last day would be 19 March 2024, with the dismissal confirmed by letter citing capability reasons. The claimant appealed, arguing this was whistleblowing retaliation, but the appeal was unsuccessful.
Decision
The tribunal found that only one disclosure qualified as protected (witnessing the child locked in car with dog) but the claimant failed to prove this was the principal reason for dismissal. Most of the alleged disclosures were either too vague, expressed personal concerns rather than public interest matters, or the claimant lacked reasonable belief at the time. The employer had previously responded supportively to earlier concerns by providing training. The claim of automatic unfair dismissal failed.
Practical note
A whistleblowing claim requires more than raising workplace concerns—the claimant must prove the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, and supportive employer responses to earlier concerns will undermine a claim of retaliatory dismissal based on proximity in time alone.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303484/2024
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- surveyor
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No