Case 1403451/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Chris Preen First v Coolink Limited Second Respondent: Mr Richard Mullins — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403451/2020
- Decision date
- 25 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms J LeVaillant, Mr E Beese
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Chris Preen First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Preen was employed from 1 April 2019 as an air conditioning and refrigeration engineer and was dismissed on 31 March 2020. The tribunal found that Coolink carried out a mix of routine and reactive work, including for essential clients, and accepted that there had been some discussions with Mr Mullins about continuing essential services during the Covid-19 outbreak. It also found that PPE and coronavirus guidance had been provided, although the claimant did not always accept or recall receiving the material.
The successful claim was automatic unfair dismissal under s100(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal treated the claimant's 23 March 2020 WhatsApp message as a reasonable means of raising health and safety concerns, accepted that he reasonably believed routine work during the first lockdown was potentially harmful to health and safety, and found that this was the principal reason for dismissal. It rejected Mr Mullins' redundancy explanation.
The alternative s100(1)(d) and s100(1)(e) unfair dismissal grounds failed because the tribunal did not find circumstances of serious and imminent danger. The whistleblowing dismissal claim failed because the WhatsApp messages were not disclosures of information with sufficient factual content under s43B ERA 1996. The health and safety detriment and protected-disclosure detriment claims also failed: the threatened laptop deduction and invoice were linked to the damaged laptop, and the tribunal did not find a detriment on the relevant grounds. The wrongful dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages, and holiday pay claims were withdrawn, and remedy was left for a later hearing, so no award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s100(1)(c) ERA 1996 was upheld. The tribunal found the claimant's 23 March 2020 WhatsApp message was a reasonable means of raising health and safety concerns, that he reasonably believed routine work during the first lockdown was potentially harmful to health and safety, and that this was the principal reason for dismissal. The alternative s100(1)(d) and s100(1)(e) grounds failed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure under s103A ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal held that the WhatsApp messages relied on did not amount to disclosures of information with sufficient factual content for s43B ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Health and safety detriment under s44 ERA 1996 failed. The threatened deduction and invoice for the damaged laptop were not found to be a detriment on the health and safety ground, and the tribunal found they were linked to the laptop damage. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for protected disclosure under s47B ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal held that the laptop invoice was not a detriment on the ground of any protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s100(1)(d) ERA 1996
- s100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s43B ERA 1996
- s103A ERA 1996
- s44 ERA 1996
- s47B ERA 1996
- Von Goetz v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust (No.1)
- Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton v Nurmohamed
- NHS Manchester v Fecitt
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Limited
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.