Mr M Robinson v Charles Watts Engineering Limited — 2023

The claimant was employed as Trade Counter Sales Manager from January 2018 until his summary dismissal on 18 December 2020. The tribunal found that tensions developed between him and colleagues JR and DS over supervision, Covid-secure measures and the trade counter barrier, and that a 28 September 2020 meeting about customer complaints escalated the workplace dispute. The claimant later went off sick and raised a written grievance on 27 October 2020, followed by further information on 5 November 2020 and an appeal in early December.

On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal held that the 27 October and 5 November grievance letters and the early December appeal contained qualifying disclosures only so far as they complained about Covid-secure measures and health and safety. The tribunal accepted that the claimant reasonably believed those matters tended to show breach of legal obligation and risk to health and safety, and that a public interest belief was reasonable in the pandemic context. It did not accept that the later allegations of racism, homophobia, drug use, or handbook and ACAS breaches were genuine qualifying disclosures.

The detriment claims under sections 47B and 44 failed. The tribunal found the disciplinary investigation into customer complaints had already been started before the first disclosure, so the investigation itself was not done on the ground of protected disclosure. The later decision to hold a disciplinary hearing was also not materially influenced by the disclosures. The automatic unfair dismissal complaints under sections 103A and 100(1)(c) were dismissed for similar reasons: the tribunal found the dismissal was instead driven by the breakdown in relationships, RW's reaction to the claimant's accusations in his appeal letter, and RW's suspicion that the claimant had contacted the HSE.

The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. Applying Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent's investigation was not reasonable: the customer complaints were gathered in a one-sided way, the claimant was not given a proper opportunity to answer them in detail, JH added a fresh allegation at the hearing, and the claimant's written responses were not properly considered. The tribunal also rejected customer pressure and breakdown-of-relationships as fair dismissal bases on the evidence, found the decision to dismiss had effectively been predetermined, and made no Polkey or contributory fault reduction.

The wrongful dismissal complaint also succeeded because the tribunal found the conduct relied on did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract justifying summary dismissal. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing, so no monetary award was fixed in this judgment; basic award, compensatory award and notice pay were left for later determination.