Case 1303185/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Craig Maxwell v E.On UK plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303185/2021
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr G.
- Venue
- West Midlands
- Panel members
- Dr G. Hammersley, Mr J. Wagstaffe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Craig Maxwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 22 to 25 May 2023 before Employment Judge G. King, with members Dr G. Hammersley and Mr J. Wagstaffe, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 and his automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the public interest disclosure detriment claim based on the respondent subjecting him to formal disciplinary action after he refused to accept a stage 4 warning because he considered it fundamentally wrong and still left the customer at risk.
The tribunal upheld the separate public interest disclosure detriment claim concerning denial of an appeal grievance hearing, finding that this breached the ACAS Code of Practice. The judgment recorded that a remedy hearing was to be listed and that remedy would be assessed if not agreed, so no final award was determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim based on formal disciplinary action after the claimant refused to accept a stage 4 warning because he said it was fundamentally wrong and still left the customer at risk. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim based on denial of an appeal grievance hearing; the tribunal said this was in breach of the ACAS Code of Practice. | Upheld | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.