Miss C Ngo-Pondi (Trade Union National Officer) For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant applied for interim relief in support of a section 103A ERA 1996 claim that his dismissal was automatically unfair because he had made protected disclosures. The tribunal identified the relevant statutory question under section 129 as whether it appeared likely that the final tribunal would find the dismissal was automatically unfair, and it applied the authorities it was referred to on the meaning of “likely”, including Taplin and Sarfraz.

On the materials before it, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had shown a likely case that the disclosures relied on were qualifying or protected disclosures. It said the evidence was limited and unfocussed, that the claimant had not coherently identified the legal obligations said to have been breached or addressed the section 43F points, and that the GMC communication appeared to arise in the context of an ongoing dispute with colleagues rather than a clearly articulated public-interest disclosure.

The tribunal also found insufficient material to show that the dismissing panel knew of protected disclosures or was influenced by them. The dismissal letter referred to a serious breakdown in working relationships in the O&G team, which the claimant accepted had occurred, and the panel concluded there were no steps short of termination. The tribunal held that the respondent's case of dismissal for some other substantial reason, namely breakdown of relationships, was coherent and logical, and refused interim relief under section 129.