MRS ROBINSON (CLAIMANT’S WIFE) FOR THE v Respondent — 2018

The tribunal heard one claim: whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed on 21 July 2017 because he brought health and safety matters to his employer’s attention by reasonable means. The claimant’s case was that, after an accident at work and concerns about the protective clothing he was given, he raised health and safety issues and was dismissed for doing so. The respondent’s case was that the decision to dismiss had already been made on 19 July 2017 because of poor gelling performance and repeated mobile phone use, and that the dismissal carried out on 21 July was simply the implementation of that earlier decision.

The judge found that the gel was not corrosive, but could be a skin irritant. He accepted evidence that the claimant had been told about performance and conduct problems throughout his employment, that his probationary period was extended on 15 May 2017, and that the respondent had already agreed on 19 July 2017 that the claimant would be dismissed because of poor performance and unwillingness to heed instructions about mobile phone use. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s half-day holiday for 21 July had already been authorised on 20 July.

On the events of 21 July, the tribunal preferred the respondent’s account that the claimant finished work at 11.00 and that Mr Pocock then carried out the dismissal already agreed two days earlier. It rejected the claimant’s case that he was dismissed because he raised health and safety concerns after the second accident. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant had not proved that a reason within s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996 was the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal.

Because the claim failed, no compensation was awarded. The judgment also records that the respondent sought costs after the judgment was given, but the tribunal did not decide that application then and instead directed the parties to file written submissions on costs.