Cases1301503/2022

Claimant v DPD Group UK Limited

3 October 2024Before Employment Judge MaxwellMidlands Westhybrid

Outcome

Partly successful£12,336

Individual claims

Whistleblowingpartly succeeded

The claimant made protected disclosures on 13, 20 and 23 August 2021 regarding drug misuse in the workplace, which tended to show criminal offences, health and safety breaches, and deliberate concealment. The tribunal found two detriments proven: Mr Baum's confrontation on 31 August 2021 and Mr Gaddu's dismissive response to death threats on 2 November 2021. Other alleged detriments either did not occur or were not causally linked to the disclosures.

Facts

The claimant, a long-serving Deckhand, raised concerns in August 2021 about drug misuse in the workplace via the respondent's whistleblowing service and in a detailed letter naming numerous employees and managers, including General Manager Lewis Baum and Hub Manager Vijay Gaddu. Drug tests were promptly conducted, resulting in several suspensions and dismissals. On 31 August 2021, Mr Baum confronted the claimant on the shop floor, saying 'I am not on drugs, and you can piss test me' and that the claimant 'could have been smarter about this', with aggressive gesticulation. In October 2021, the claimant received death threats which he reported to police and to Mr Gaddu on 2 November 2021, but Mr Gaddu told him to ignore them and took no workplace protective action. The claimant also had ongoing issues with a colleague, leading to a disciplinary matter and periods of stress-related sickness absence.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant made protected disclosures about drug misuse which reasonably tended to show criminal offences, health and safety dangers, and deliberate concealment, and were in the public interest. Two detriments succeeded: Mr Baum's confrontation on 31 August 2021 was directly caused by the disclosure and improperly suggested the claimant should not have reported as he did; and Mr Gaddu's dismissive response on 2 November 2021 failed to protect the claimant from alleged retaliation, which was partly caused by the disclosure naming Mr Gaddu. Other complaints failed either because the conduct did not occur or was not causally linked to the disclosure. The claimant was awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings plus interest.

Practical note

Senior managers who are implicated in a whistleblower's disclosure must not confront or berate the employee about the disclosure, and must still provide proper protection from alleged workplace retaliation, even if they feel aggrieved by false accusations.

Award breakdown

Injury to feelings£10,000
Interest£2,336

Vento band: middle

Legal authorities cited

Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] ICR 1026Fecitt v NHS Manchester [2012] IRLR 64Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd [2007] ICR 193Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] ICR 325

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.48(4)ERA 1996 s.48(3)ERA 1996 s.43CERA 1996 s.43B

Case details

Case number
1301503/2022
Decision date
3 October 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Deckhand
Service
20 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister