Ms Eiluned Jones v The Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham (AVOW) — 2019

The tribunal found that Ms Jones made a protected public interest disclosure on 27 June 2017 when she reported that A had been driving his own vehicle on a public road to transport AVOW equipment while she believed he was not safe to drive. Applying section 43B ERA 1996 and the authorities cited, including Kilraine and Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed, it held that the disclosure was information made in the public interest on a reasonable belief basis.

The detriment allegations under sections 47B and 48 ERA 1996 were dismissed. The tribunal reviewed the grievance, suspension, disciplinary investigation and redundancy events in detail, but concluded that the alleged treatment was not caused by the disclosure. It found no conscious or unconscious antipathy by Ms Milner or Mr Gallanders related to whistleblowing, and rejected the claim that the grievance and redundancy processes were manipulated because of the disclosure.

On dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the principal reason was redundancy. It found that the Dragon Tale project had been poorly managed and was not meeting its targets, and that AVOW genuinely believed the project had no realistic prospect of success and should end. The section 103A ERA 1996 dismissal claim therefore failed because the disclosure was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded under section 98(4) ERA 1996. Relying on the redundancy consultation principles in Williams v Compair Maxim Ltd, the tribunal found that AVOW did not consult the claimant about how the risk of closure might be reduced, did not discuss the relevant pool, and did not discuss suitable alternative employment. The judgment did not assess compensation; it said the extent to which the procedural failings affected the process or length of employment would be determined on another occasion.