Case 1403802/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403802/2021
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms P Skillin, Mr K Sleeth
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent operated a security-critical fuel depot environment and raised an Aftercare Incident Report after concerns arose about the claimant's behaviour, security clearance, and use of the respondent's IT system. The tribunal found that, despite clear instructions not to access the system after his security clearance was suspended, the claimant continued to do so and sent Mr Jacobs' P60 to his personal email without authority.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant's emails of 17 December 2020 and 29 January 2021 were protected disclosures about alleged mobile-phone safety breaches at the depot. It rejected the claimant's verbal allegation of corruption to Mr Jackson and the two reports said to have been made to the MoD confidential hotline as protected disclosures, because the claimant did not give sufficient evidence of what was disclosed, why it showed a legal breach or criminal offence, or why the public interest test was met.
The whistleblowing detriment claim failed because the first AIR predated any protected disclosure, while the second and third AIRs, the suspension, and the disciplinary process were found to have been driven by security and IT concerns, including repeated access to a disabled account, the P60 transfer, and related conduct issues, rather than by the protected disclosures. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 also failed because the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was repeated gross misconduct, not whistleblowing.
On ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach and held that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in gross misconduct after a full investigation and appeal. Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The direct race discrimination claim based on Latvian nationality failed: one allegation was withdrawn, and the remaining allegations were found to be explained by conduct and security concerns rather than race. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim dismissed: the tribunal held the respondent genuinely and reasonably believed the claimant had committed repeated gross misconduct, and dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses after a full investigation and appeal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 dismissed: the tribunal accepted that the emails of 17 December 2020 and 29 January 2021 were protected disclosures, but found the reason for dismissal was repeated gross misconduct, not those disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 dismissed: the first AIR predated any protected disclosure, and the later AIRs, suspension, and disciplinary process were found to be prompted by security and IT concerns rather than the disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim based on Latvian nationality dismissed: one allegation was withdrawn at the hearing, and the remaining allegations were found to be explained by conduct and security concerns, not race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- Fecitt material influence
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.43H ERA 1996
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Igen/Madarassy burden of proof
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.