Mr S Langenhoven First v Shropshire Council Second Respondent: Mr S Brown Third Respondent: Mr A Morgan Fourth Respondent: Mr A McKie Fifth Respondent: Mr M Seddon Sixth Respondent: Mr M Barrow — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant made protected disclosures in or around May 2019, with the First Respondent becoming aware on 24 May 2019, Mr Seddon shortly after 29 May 2019, Mr Brown on 18 September 2019, and Mr Barrow on 19 September 2019. It found that Mr Morgan and Mr McKie did not know of the protected disclosures before these proceedings, and that there was no evidence that anyone with knowledge of the disclosures influenced their decisions.

The claimant's pleaded detriments were failure to instigate the whistleblowing policy, exclusion from internal meetings and emails, removal of duties, termination of his engagement, and failure to consider redeployment. The tribunal held that he had not established in what way the whistleblowing policy had failed, or that he had been excluded from meetings and emails in the manner pleaded. It found that the meetings from which he was excluded were senior confidential negotiations outside his remit, while the claimant remained involved in other emails, meetings, and documents concerning the Kier contract.

On the alleged removal of duties, the tribunal found that work previously covered because of illness was moved to Mr McKie when he was engaged to support the team, and that the claimant's IT access ending with the end of his engagement was normal process. On termination, the tribunal found the claimant knew from July 2019 that his temporary engagement could end when a Senior Quantity Surveyor was appointed, and that this is what happened when that role was filled. It also found there were no redeployment opportunities available beyond roles the claimant declined because of pay.

The tribunal concluded that the pleaded matters, taken individually and together, were no more than unjustified grievances and did not amount to detriments for the purposes of section 47B ERA 1996. Because the claim failed on detriment and causation, the tribunal did not need to decide the remaining time-limit issues, and all claims were dismissed.