Case 1306088/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Black v Eurotube (2005) Ltd t/a Global Tube Fabrications — 2018
- Case reference
- 1306088/2018
- Decision date
- 30 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miler
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Miss L Clarke, Mr S Woodall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Black
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Black worked as powder coating manager and was dismissed with effect from 1 September 2018. The tribunal found that he had raised a number of complaints during employment, but only some amounted to protected disclosures: complaints about unsuitable FFP3 masks, an out-of-date PAT test on the powder coating machine, and inadequate COSHH information. It also found he brought to the employer’s attention circumstances connected with work for the purposes of s100 in relation to the masks, the PAT test, the changing area, bullying, and the water near his machine, while rejecting or not accepting the alleged disclosures about boots, overalls, training, CCTV, fire safety, and the quality control manual as made out.
On causation, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that Mr Groves and Mr Brandreth dismissed Mr Black because they genuinely believed he was not performing adequately as a manager. The dismissal decision followed a disciplinary meeting on 30 August 2018 and an appeal on 12 September 2018, where the respondent raised matters such as job order, late orders, team management, labelling, and failure to charge the new mask. The tribunal found that the respondent had already taken steps in response to the complaints, including providing an air-powered face mask after the HSE visit and arranging PAT testing, which supported the conclusion that the disclosures were not the reason for dismissal.
The s103A, s100 and s104 unfair dismissal claims were dismissed, as was the whistleblowing detriment claim under s47B. The tribunal found that the alleged detriments were not proved as pleaded or were not shown to be caused by protected disclosures. Separately, it declared under ss11 and 12 ERA 1996 that Mr Black had not received itemised pay statements for a period of about two to three months before May 2018, but made no financial award because there were no unnotified deductions in the relevant 13-week period. It also found that no written statement of particulars had been provided, but made no award under s38 Employment Act 2002 because the only successful claim was the payslip issue, which was not a qualifying Schedule 5 claim.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 | Health and safety dismissal claim under s100 ERA 1996; the tribunal found the dismissal was for genuine performance concerns, not because the claimant raised health and safety matters. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Whistleblowing dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996; some complaints about masks, PAT testing and COSHH were protected disclosures, but they were not the reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal for asserting a statutory right under s104 ERA 1996; the tribunal found the contract issue was not raised until the disciplinary/appeal process and was not the reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Alleged detriments under s47B ERA 1996 were not proved as pleaded or were not shown to have been caused by protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Declaration under ss11 and 12 ERA 1996 that the claimant had not received itemised pay statements for about two to three months before May 2018; no monetary award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) v Nurmohamed
- Parsons v Air Plus Ltd
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Ibekwe v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Alidair Ltd v Taylor
- South London & Maudsley NHS Trust v Dathi
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.