Mr M Griffiths v B A Shorthouse Limited FINAL HEARING — 2024

Mr M Griffiths was employed by B A Shorthouse Limited as a lorry driver from September 2021 until his resignation with effect from 3 March 2023. He relied on two emails sent on 15 and 23 September 2022 after a dispute about a vehicle that had been taken to Scania for inspection and repair. The tribunal accepted that the vehicle had a brake defect, but found that the Claimant had exaggerated parts of his account and that the central question was whether either email contained a qualifying disclosure made in the public interest.

The tribunal held that neither email contained a protected disclosure. It accepted that the Claimant did disclose information which could tend to show a breach of a legal obligation in relation to defect-book recording, and that the vehicle issue could potentially engage health and safety, but it found that he did not believe, or reasonably believe, that he was making the disclosures in the public interest. The tribunal concluded that the emails were written to justify his own position and deflect criticism after the events of 14 and 15 September 2022, rather than to raise a public-interest concern.

Even if there had been protected disclosures, the tribunal found that the detriment allegations failed because the evidence did not show that the relevant people knew the substantive contents of the emails or acted because of them. It rejected the alleged detriments including the refusal to meet, reduced contact with colleagues, the effigies and Halloween tableau, the allegations about vehicles being swerved at or items thrown at the truck, the tyre incident, the toy gun, the grievance handling, and the non-payment of pension contributions. It also found that some matters were not objectively detriments or were not linked to the disclosures.

The constructive dismissal complaint also failed. The tribunal said the only matters capable of amounting to a breach of trust and confidence were the mannequins and the non-payment of pension contributions, but any breach arising from the mannequins had been affirmed before resignation and the pension issue was not a fundamental breach in the circumstances. The tribunal therefore dismissed the whole claim and did not need to determine time limits, although it noted that several freestanding detriment complaints would in any event have been out of time.