Mr W. Matthaus (C) v MBNA Ltd and 2 others — 2021

The tribunal held that Mr Matthaus was a worker for both respondents at the material time, but not an employee or contract worker. On that basis the breach of contract claim failed. The unlawful deduction claim also failed because the parties' payment arrangement required approved timesheets, and after the respondents initially rejected the August 2018 timesheets and invited a fresh submission, the claimant did not resubmit unrejected timesheets.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found protected disclosures on 27 and 29 June 2018 and on 19 July 2018 about pressure on breaks, inadequate training and support for CRT work, the handling of Affinity and Horizon card information, and concerns that colleagues' dyslexia or learning difficulties meant adjustments were needed. It found detriments including not being allowed to remain on the project, the investigatory meeting on 25 July 2018, stricter scrutiny of timekeeping and working practices, and termination. The principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was those protected disclosures; the effective date of dismissal was 21 August 2018.

The tribunal rejected the direct discrimination claims on race and on religion or belief and rejected the harassment allegations, finding the alleged comment and conduct not proved and finding no causal link to either protected characteristic. It also rejected the 3 August 2018 email as a protected act for victimisation, but upheld victimisation because the claimant's 19 July 2018 complaint about colleagues' disability-related difficulties was a protected act and was held against him. This was a liability judgment only and it records no monetary award.