Mr I Wright (Counsel) For v Respondent — 2021

Mr Chiappe had been employed by GKN Aerospace Services Limited since 22 November 1993. He was removed from his role as General Manager at Luton on 6 June 2019, remained on special leave, lodged grievances on 15 June 2019 against Mr Gavin Wesson and Ms Estelle Maitland, and was dismissed on 15 August 2019. He contended that the grievances were protected disclosures and that his dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996.

The tribunal held that neither grievance was a protected disclosure. It found that the grievance against Mr Wesson consisted of generalised allegations of bullying and intimidation, with no sufficient disclosure of facts showing a failure to comply with a legal obligation, and that the claimant had no reasonable basis for saying Mr Wesson had bullied others. It also held that the grievance against Ms Maitland was, in substance, a complaint that a performance management process had not been followed, which did not disclose information tending to show a breach of legal obligation. The tribunal further found that the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that either grievance was made in the public interest.

On causation, the tribunal found that the grievances were not any part of the reason for dismissal. It held that the respondent's change of course from intending to find the claimant an alternative finance role to deciding to terminate his employment was driven by his conduct after removal from post, including his refusal to engage constructively with the process, his failure to contact Mr Hewitt about the finance role, and intimidating emails and text messages. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had dealt with the grievances through independent investigators and that the grievances were of least concern in the later dismissal decision.

The respondent conceded the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996. The tribunal therefore upheld that claim and awarded a compensatory award of £86,444 under s.118(b) ERA 1996. It left the basic award and any outstanding breach of contract issues to be dealt with at later hearings, and noted that the respondent had already paid £13,650 described as a statutory termination payment.