Mr. C Lloyd v Ezec Medical Transport Services Limited — 2024

The tribunal held that the WMAS meal and rest break local agreement was contractual and transferred to the respondent under TUPE. It found the agreement gave staff an automatic £15 compensatory payment if an operational break was missed within the window, and a £5 reimbursement where a break away from base was mutually agreed. It also held that, for off-base meal allowances, the claimant did not need receipts and could certify the claim under the Agenda for Change terms.

On the protected disclosure allegations, the claimant relied on 18 disclosures and the respondent conceded all but disclosure 4, which was withdrawn. The tribunal dismissed the detriment claims, finding that the suspension, allegations in the suspension letter, investigation meetings, investigation report, and the handling of mitigation were not caused by the disclosures. It found that the relevant decision-makers acted on their own beliefs about the claimant's conduct, even though one allegation in the investigation report that he brought the company into disrepute was not supported by evidence.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 also failed because the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, not protected disclosures. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded, however, because the dismissal and appeal process were outside the band of reasonable responses: new SOSR and breach-of-trust reasoning was introduced at dismissal stage without prior notice, one dismissal ground would only have justified a warning, and the appeal manager had prior involvement in the earlier meal-break grievance. The tribunal recorded that remedy, including Polkey and contributory fault, was left for a later hearing.