Claimant v Troup Bywaters + Anders LLP
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures because his beliefs that the disclosures were made in the public interest and that they tended to show a breach of legal obligation or danger to health were not reasonable beliefs. Without protected disclosures, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA failed.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures, and therefore the complaints of detriments done on the ground of making such disclosures failed. Even examining the alleged detriments on their facts, the tribunal found most were not detriments at all or were not done for the alleged reasons, except for the content of the dismissal letter which was a detriment but not done because of any disclosures.
The tribunal found that the respondent had correctly calculated the claimant's holiday pay entitlement. The claimant accrued 10.5 days leave during his 5 months of employment and took 13 days, so the respondent was entitled to deduct 2.5 days' pay from his final salary.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Mechanical Engineer for 5 months during his probationary period. He raised concerns about long working hours, IT problems, and the effect on himself and colleagues including apprentices potentially falling below the minimum wage. He was dismissed on 26 January 2023 by Mr Hixson following a meeting in which he raised these concerns again and accused Mr Hixson of lying about the role during his interview. The respondent gave as reasons for dismissal the claimant's perceived negative attitude and excessive complaints, particularly about IT issues and resources.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims. The claimant's alleged protected disclosures failed because his beliefs that they were made in the public interest and tended to show breaches of legal obligation or endangerment to health were not reasonable. Without protected disclosures, the automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims failed. The health and safety dismissal claim failed because it was reasonably practicable to raise concerns with the designated representative, and the Working Time claim failed because the claimant was not asked to forgo rest rights. The holiday pay claim failed because the respondent's calculation was correct.
Practical note
A claimant must have not just a genuine belief but a reasonable belief that a disclosure is made in the public interest and tends to show wrongdoing; generalised concerns about colleagues' working hours without detailed factual knowledge will not satisfy the reasonableness requirement for protected disclosures.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2208197/2023
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Mechanical Engineer
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No