Mr R Talman v Airbus Operations Limited Heard: by video — 2021

The tribunal heard the case by video before Employment Judge S Jenkins and lay members Mrs L Bishop and Mrs M Walters. It first dismissed the protected-disclosure detriment complaint under section 47B ERA 1996 because the claim had been presented outside the three-month limitation period and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought in time.

The tribunal then rejected the section 103A ERA 1996 whistleblowing dismissal claim, finding that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was not that the claimant had made a protected disclosure. By contrast, it upheld the wrongful dismissal claim, holding that the claimant had not committed a repudiatory breach of contract that entitled the respondent to dismiss him without notice.

The tribunal also upheld the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 94(1) ERA 1996. It did not assess compensation in the judgment itself, but stated that remedy would be dealt with separately unless the parties reached agreement. It indicated that any basic award would be reduced by 50% for conduct before dismissal, any compensatory award would be reduced by 50% under the Polkey principle, and the compensatory award would then be further reduced by 50% for contributory conduct.