Mr S Rowlands v Denbighshire County Council — 2023

Mr Rowlands was the Commercial Service Manager at Cefndy Healthcare and Manufacturing. The Tribunal accepted that, during 2020, he raised concerns about Cefndy's future, including alternative delivery models, Brexit-related trading issues and CE marking. It accepted that he made protected disclosures in that period, including the 27 November 2020 email about an "unrecoverable and illegal situation".

The central issue was the Claimant's creation of Cefndy Enables Limited on 10 November 2020. The Tribunal found that he opened a bank account, became sole director, and that orders and payments involving the company began to occur, including contact with customers, before the Council was told. It preferred the evidence of Mr Bowles and other management witnesses on when the Council became aware, and found that the Claimant did not inform his line managers of the company or his personal interest in it in a timely way. The Tribunal upheld the Respondent's case that this breached the Code of Conduct provisions on disclosure of information, outside commitments and personal interest, and it accepted the finding of gross misconduct.

The Tribunal noted some procedural issues, including delay in providing terms of reference, a grievance on suspension being dealt with by Mr Gary Williams despite earlier involvement, and the fact that Miss Lloyd and Mr Bowles did not attend the disciplinary hearing. However, it found the investigation by Helena Thomas to be thorough and balanced, and concluded that the Deciding Officer and appeal panel reached honest and reasonable conclusions on the evidence. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, and addressing the protected disclosure arguments under the whistleblowing provisions, the Tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct rather than the protected disclosures, that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, and that any procedural unfairness would not have changed the outcome under Polkey. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no award was made.