Mr R Howells v Castle Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd and 1 other — 2025

The claimant was employed as Health and Safety Manager from 31 May 2020. After he went off sick with Long Covid in August 2021, the respondents investigated health and safety issues at hotel sites and then commenced disciplinary action based on alleged failings in fire extinguisher maintenance, fire evacuation planning, legionella risk assessment, and audits and inspections at the Doncaster International Hotel. He was summarily dismissed on 23 March 2022 and his appeal was rejected on 25 April 2022.

On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's 10 February 2022 report to the Pensions Regulator, and his notification to the respondent that he had made it, were protected disclosures. It found that the later fire service contacts were not protected disclosures because local fire authorities were not prescribed persons, and that the Environmental Health allegation was too vague to support a firm finding. The tribunal held that the protected disclosure did not cause the dismissal, because the disciplinary process had already been set in train by the second respondent's concerns about the claimant's work and the dismissal decision was based on the health and safety findings in Mr Harris' and Mr Cox's reports.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had Long Covid and poor vision as disabilities. It rejected direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and reasonable adjustments complaints, finding that the disciplinary, grievance, and appeal steps were taken because of absence, misconduct, and performance concerns rather than because of disability. It also found that the claimant had been offered alternative ways to participate, including telephone, video, written submissions, and in-person meetings, and that the PCP complaints either were not established as workplace practices or did not show a substantial disadvantage.

On victimisation, the tribunal held that only the 18 February grievance and the 13 and 14 March emails were protected acts. It rejected the alleged detriments, including short timescales, venue objections, the handling of grievances, the absence of GP or Occupational Health input, and the 9 March no-contact letter, finding that they were not because of protected acts. The post-employment correspondence of 19 April and 17 May 2022 was also rejected as discriminatory or victimising. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.