Mr P Sayers, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2019

Mr Reyes, a Filipino national employed by the University of Exeter on a fixed-term contract from 8 January 2018, brought whistleblowing and race-victimisation claims arising out of his probationary dismissal process. This judgment was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Roper to decide whether he had made protected disclosures and whether he had done a protected act for victimisation purposes. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Dr White and Ms Johnson, and set out the statutory tests under sections 43A to 43C of the ERA 1996 and section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.

On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal rejected most of the claimant's alleged disclosures. It did not accept that his oral comments in May or June 2018 about the drone, dress codes, Dr Richter's title, or gifts conveyed information showing a breach of legal obligation, health and safety risk, or environmental damage. It found that some of those points were really complaints about etiquette, hierarchy, or relationship management, and that contemporaneous documents and the transcript of the meeting with Ms Johnson did not support the claimant's later case on those alleged oral disclosures. The tribunal also rejected any allegation under section 43B(1)(f) because there was no evidence of concealment.

The tribunal did, however, find protected disclosures in relation to the written response dated 24 July 2018 and the grievance dated 17 August 2018. In that written material, the claimant stated that the drone had been used in breach of Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines rules and that local dress codes for government buildings had been breached; the tribunal found that these amounted to disclosures of information, that the claimant believed they were in the public interest, and that it was reasonable for him to hold that belief. It held that the same disclosures were repeated in the grievance of 17 August 2018. The judgment did not determine whether any whistleblowing detriment claim or automatic unfair dismissal claim ultimately succeeded.

On victimisation, the tribunal rejected the alleged protected acts said to have occurred on 25 May 2018 and 21 June 2018 because it did not accept that the claimant had complained that he was being discriminated against when speaking Tagalog was allegedly restricted. It found that the grievance of 17 August 2018 was a protected act because it expressly complained of discrimination on grounds of nationality and race. The judgment did not decide the substantive victimisation claim or any remedy.