Case 1309009/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Whelan v C Brown & Sons (Steel) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309009/2019
- Decision date
- 16 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Whelan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Whelan worked for C Brown & Sons (Steel) Limited as Health and Safety Adviser from 6 November 2017 until his dismissal with effect from 4 November 2019. The tribunal found that he repeatedly raised health and safety issues during his employment, including incidents involving unsecured loads and eye protection, and that the respondent accepted those reports were qualifying protected disclosures. The respondent also accepted that, when he made the disclosures relied on, he was carrying out health and safety activities and taking appropriate steps within section 100 ERA 1996.
The tribunal found that the respondent had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance in the role. It accepted evidence from AC that there were issues about spreadsheets, task completion, office organisation, chairing meetings, and time spent on the shop floor, but found those concerns were not formally or clearly discussed with the claimant before dismissal. It also found that the claimant's reports on 30 September, 2 October and 3 October 2019 were acted on by the respondent, including disciplinary action against the employees concerned and reminders to drivers about securing loads.
The key issue was the reason for dismissal on 4 October 2019. The tribunal accepted AC's evidence that he had decided to terminate the claimant's employment because of his concerns about the claimant's capability in the role, reinforced by comments from the recognised trade union, and because he wanted to dismiss before the claimant reached two years' service. It rejected the claimant's case that he was dismissed because he made protected disclosures or because he carried out health and safety activities. It also rejected allegations of fabricated documents or a culture of ignoring health and safety breaches, finding instead that the disputed documents were genuine and that any errors were administrative. Both the section 100 and section 103A complaints were therefore dismissed, and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 100 ERA 1996 (health and safety). The tribunal accepted that the claimant was designated to carry out health and safety activities and that the relevant incidents fell within section 100(1)(a) and (e), but found that the principal reason for dismissal was not those activities. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the claimant made protected disclosures on 30 September, 2 October and 3 October 2019, and treated the alleged 1 October 2019 disclosure as having been made on 2 September 2019, but held that dismissal was not because of any protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s43B ERA 1996
- s43C ERA 1996
- s100 ERA 1996
- s100(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s103A ERA 1996
- Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Limited v Geduld
- Kilraine v Wandsworth London Borough Council
- Royal Mail Group v Jhuti
- Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
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.