Claimant v Scotsman Group plc

The tribunal found that none of the asserted disclosures met the threshold to be qualifying disclosures under s43B ERA. The claimant's statements lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to demonstrate that health and safety was endangered or that legal obligations were breached. For example, her complaint about breaks was not reasonable as she had the ability to arrange breaks with Hotel cover. The tribunal concluded the claimant did not make any protected disclosures.

Because the tribunal found the claimant had not made any qualifying or protected disclosures, the detriment claim under s47B ERA could not succeed. The tribunal also found that the actual reasons for the claimant's treatment (removal of rota access, dismissal) were performance concerns unrelated to any disclosures she claimed to have made.

Having found no protected disclosures were made, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA could not succeed. The tribunal was satisfied the sole reason for dismissal was genuine performance concerns during probation, particularly the claimant altering rotas after being told not to, failing to meet deadlines, and attendance issues.

The tribunal found the claimant worked 224 hours but was only paid for 222 hours. The rotas and payslips demonstrated she was underpaid by 2 hours at £12 per hour, resulting in an unauthorised deduction of £24 under s13 ERA.

The claimant alleged breach of contract regarding pension auto-enrolment. The tribunal found the respondent was entitled to a 3-month waiting period before assessment and that the contract did not specify timing. More fundamentally, the tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction over auto-enrolment matters, which fall to the Pensions Regulator.