In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Roy Norris alleged that he had made 22 protected public interest disclosures in 2012 about financial matters and alleged fraud connected with Bristol City Council market licence fees, and that he had suffered 120 detriments because of those disclosures. The tribunal did not hear detailed evidence on whether the disclosures were protected disclosures or whether the alleged detriments occurred, and it therefore made no findings on those substantive matters at this stage.

The tribunal held that, save for six alleged detriments said to have occurred on 3 July 2020, the detriment complaints were presented outside the three-month time limit in section 48(3) ERA 1996 and were dismissed. It rejected the argument that the six 3 July 2020 allegations formed part of a series with the earlier allegations, finding no causative or evidential link between them. The tribunal also held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the complaints in time, given that he had union representation, knew of his rights, and there was no physical impediment or misrepresentation preventing a timely claim.

On respondents, the tribunal dismissed Mr Marvin Rees as a respondent because he was the elected Mayor of Bristol, not a worker of the council, and there was no evidence that he acted as the council's agent for the relevant purposes. The tribunal also recorded the background disciplinary process in 2018, including that the disciplinary allegations about tweets were not upheld and the process was withdrawn in November 2018. Although the tribunal refused to strike out the surviving 3 July 2020 allegations, it said they had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order, taking account of the claimant's means.