Did not attend and was not represented For the v Butterfields Home Services Ltd T/a Butterfields Community Care — 2021

The tribunal heard the claimant's application for interim relief by video on 26 May 2021. The claimant did not attend at the start of the hearing, but the tribunal made attempts to contact him and, after allowing time for him to join, proceeded in his absence under rule 47. The respondent's evidence before the judge included the claim form, WhatsApp messages, email correspondence, a contract, and the termination letter dated 29 December 2020.

The claimant's case was that he had refused a work requirement because he did not think it was safe to travel after working from 08:00 until 22:15 without a break, and that he had raised those concerns with management. The respondent said the dismissal was for conduct, namely refusal to follow a reasonable management instruction while on a retained shift, and denied that any protected disclosure had been made. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not produced contemporaneous documents supporting his account, while the respondent's WhatsApp material and termination letter were consistent with its explanation.

Applying the interim relief test under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal considered whether it appeared likely that the claimant would succeed at the final hearing on the basis that the dismissal was for making a protected disclosure. It concluded that the claimant did not have a "pretty good" chance of success and refused interim relief. The judgment therefore resolved only the interim application and did not decide the substantive unfair dismissal or whistleblowing claim.