Mr J Worthington v Milking Solutions (UK) Limited — 2022

Mr J Worthington worked as a farm manager for Milking Solutions (UK) Limited from 24 January 2020 to 31 March 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent's reason for ending the employment was redundancy, prompted by Covid and Brexit concerns and a decision to refocus on the core business. It accepted that on 10 March 2020 the claimant raised a qualifying health and safety concern when he said he was not trained or experienced for the construction work on the mezzanine floor and had concerns about the construction team and CSCS cards, but it found that this concern played no part in the redundancy decision.

The tribunal rejected the other health and safety dismissal allegations. It treated the 2 March emails about first aid kits, accident books and posters as a low-level exchange rather than a disclosure of harmful working conditions. It found the greenhouse emails between 2 and 6 March were requests for help with clearing and fitting panels, not complaints that the work itself was unsafe. It also found the 13 March comments about sheep troughs, COSHH and food safety were about longer-term farm management and sheep care, not concerns about human health and safety, and that the 17 to 18 March enquiry about Mr Morgan and Covid was only a request for information.

The section 104 claim also failed. The tribunal held that asking whether he needed to come in to sign his contract for payroll purposes did not make it reasonably clear that he was alleging infringement of a statutory right to written particulars. It relied on the wording of section 104 ERA 1996 and the authority in Mennell v Newell & Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd, and it also referred to Ross v Eddie Stobbart Limited and Kuzel v Roche Products Limited when discussing the burden of proof in automatic unfair dismissal cases.

The detriment claim under section 44 ERA 1996, based on alleged denial of training opportunities and the loss of his home, was dismissed. The tribunal found the training decisions were genuine business decisions, that the claimant had been given the green light to attend courses, and that the chainsaw training arrangements had already been discussed before the first relied-on health and safety concern. It also found that the steps taken in relation to the flat were driven by unpaid rent and a breakdown in the parties' relationship, not by the 10 March concern.

On breach of contract, the tribunal rejected the alleged promise of six months' minimum employment and found instead that the claimant had been offered permanent employment with a six-month probationary period. It also dismissed the two-year residence claim for lack of jurisdiction because it concerned living accommodation. The unpaid expenses claim succeeded and the tribunal awarded £209.09 for authorised travel, tools, seeds and other small purchases. Separately, it found the respondent had failed to provide a statement of employment particulars in time and made a section 38 Employment Act 2002 award of four weeks' gross pay, £1,538, taking the total award to £1,747.09.