Andrew Midgley, of Counsel v Respondent — 2019

Richard Harris applied for interim relief after NASUWT terminated his employment in late October 2018. The tribunal said the application had to be decided on the papers, with no oral evidence and no factual findings at that stage. It held that leave was not needed to amend the ET1 specifically to plead s103A ERA 1996, and that, if it had been needed, amendment would have been allowed. It also granted leave to add Ms Keates as a second respondent and to plead a s47B detriment claim during employment.

The tribunal found that the email Mr Harris sent on 16 October 2018 contained qualifying disclosures. It accepted disclosures about an alleged criminal offence, namely wasting police time, and about alleged breaches of legal obligation concerning the removal of his company car and the handling of disciplinary matters. It did not treat the health, safety and wellbeing point in the same email as a protected disclosure. In considering the public interest requirement, the tribunal referred to Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed and held that the disclosures were made in the public interest, including because of the scale and role of the respondent as a large teaching union.

On causation, the tribunal held that it was likely the Staff Review Committee dismissed Mr Harris because of the 16 October 2018 email, particularly his statement that he would go to the press if the matter was not dealt with internally. It noted that the committee chair said he knew nothing of the detail beyond the email, and it considered the dismissal letter to focus on the claimant's threats and complaints. The tribunal therefore made an interim relief order under s129(9) ERA 1996 continuing the contract of employment, and directed the parties to agree the amount payable under s130(2) or return for a further hearing.