Claimant v Bristow Helicopters Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief hearing. The tribunal refused the application because the claimant did not meet the high threshold of showing a 'pretty good chance of success'. There were preliminary issues about whether the disclosure qualified for protection under s.43B, whether it was in the public interest, and whether it was the reason for dismissal. The respondent had a stateable defence that dismissal was due to unsatisfactory performance during probation.
The claimant alleged he made a protected disclosure on 20 March 2024 complaining of ongoing bullying to the HR Director. The tribunal identified preliminary issues including whether this qualified as a protected disclosure under s.43B, whether it was made in the public interest rather than being a private employment dispute, and whether the claimant had a reasonable belief. These issues remain to be determined at a full hearing.
Facts
The claimant, who lacked two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal, claimed automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. He alleged he complained anonymously about ongoing bullying to the HR Director on 20 March 2024, identifying himself on 5 June 2024. He was dismissed during a probationary review. The respondent's witnesses stated his performance was unsatisfactory during probation and the decision-maker was unaware of any complaint.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. The judge found the claimant had not met the high threshold of showing a 'pretty good chance of success'. There were preliminary issues about whether the disclosure qualified for protection, whether it was in the public interest, and whether it caused the dismissal. The respondent had a stateable defence that dismissal was for unsatisfactory probationary performance.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing dismissal cases require near-certainty of success, and will fail where there are preliminary issues about whether a disclosure qualifies for protection and where the employer has a credible alternative explanation for dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4105605/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No