In Person For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Paul Ricketts was employed as General Manager of the Falmouth Hotel. The tribunal found that his emails and telephone call on 21 and 22 March 2020, raising concerns that the bar and restaurant should close during the Covid-19 lockdown, were protected disclosures under sections 43B and 43C ERA 1996. The respondent later conceded that all four disclosures relied on were protected public interest disclosures.

The detriment claim failed. The tribunal rejected the allegations that Mr Ricketts was removed from his role on 25 March 2020, was asked to sign a pre-typed resignation letter, or was replaced by Mr Ghosh as General Manager at Falmouth. It found that he was placed on furlough with consent, that no resignation letter was presented, and that Mr Ghosh was recalled into a cheaper, junior arrangement and later into a reduced Hotel Manager role only from 1 June 2021. The tribunal held that the redundancy dismissal was driven by the pandemic-related reduction in the business, not by the protected disclosures, applying the Fecitt approach to material influence.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation after the March 2020 lockdown, that all four General Manager posts were removed, and that the process included collective consultation, individual consultation, consideration of alternative roles and an appeal to an independent consultant. It held that the respondent showed redundancy was the reason for dismissal, that the process would have satisfied section 98(4) fairness in any event, and that there was no evidence that Mr Legendre was manipulated or misled within the meaning of Jhuti.