Case 1602457/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Murphy v Cardiff Galvanisers (1969) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1602457/2020
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms Izzard, Mr Collier
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered three whistleblowing claims arising from events between March and August 2020, together with a constructive unfair dismissal claim. It found that on 18 March 2020 Ms Murphy repeated a concern that requiring an employee with temperature, sore throat and cough to attend the premises for a temperature test risked spreading COVID-19. The tribunal held that this was a protected public interest disclosure because it conveyed information about a health and safety risk and she reasonably believed it was in the public interest.
The detriment complaint under sections 47B and 48 ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal treated the relevant detriment as Robert Evans shouting at Ms Murphy on 18 March 2020, held that no later relevant detriment was shown, and concluded that the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit. It found that Ms Murphy had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present that complaint in time.
The section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed. Although the tribunal accepted the protected disclosure, it held that the principal reason for Ms Murphy's resignation was not that disclosure but the cumulative conduct of Gareth and Robert Evans, including the 11 March 2020 incident about dismissing three workers, the 18 March 2020 shouting incident, and Robert Evans' later handling of her sickness absence, questioning of her reasons for absence, and insistence on a telephone meeting on 18 August 2020. It found that much of that conduct was without reasonable and proper cause, but not that the disclosure was the principal reason for the resignation.
The tribunal held that the resignation on 17 August 2020 amounted to a dismissal for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, that the respondent had not established some other substantial reason, and that the cumulative conduct was a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The constructive unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded. No remedy award is recorded in this liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Sections 47B and 48 ERA 1996 detriment claim. The tribunal accepted that the 18 March 2020 COVID-related complaint was a protected disclosure, but held that the complaint about Robert Evans' shouting on that date was out of time and that Ms Murphy had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal accepted the 18 March 2020 disclosure was protected, but found it was not the principal reason for the claimant's resignation/dismissal; the principal reason was the cumulative conduct of Gareth and Robert Evans. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and held that the claimant's resignation on 17 August 2020 amounted to a dismissal caused by that breach. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.43B ERA 1996 protected disclosure
- Cavendish Monroe Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- s.48 ERA 1996 time limit
- Porter v Banbridge Ltd
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Malik v BCCI
- Sparfax Ltd v Harrison
- Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council
- Croft v Consignia PLC
- Omalanju v The London Borough of Waltham Forest
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- W E Cox Toner International Ltd v Crook
- Jones v F Sirl & Son (Furnishers) Ltd
- Maund v Penwith District Council
- Hilton v Shiner Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.