In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked as a 3D Artist from 1 May 2018. After concerns about timekeeping, time logging and use of the facial scanners, he admitted the allegations at a disciplinary hearing on 9 September 2021 and was issued with a final written warning on 10 September 2021. On 16 September 2021 he was told that he would not be allowed to work from home. The tribunal found that he then referred to Mr Hodges as an "idiot" in an aggressive manner and attempted to remove his laptop from the respondent's premises without authorisation. He was suspended on 17 September 2021, further disciplinary proceedings followed, and he was summarily dismissed on 9 November 2021 after a disciplinary hearing and appeal.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had been aggressive and hostile towards Mr Hodges, had used inappropriate language, had disobeyed a reasonable management instruction not to work from home, and had removed company property without authorisation. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, it held that those beliefs were based on reasonable grounds, that the investigation and appeal process were reasonable, and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal noted the claimant's mental health and length of service, but concluded that the dismissal was still fair.

On whistleblowing dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant did not establish any qualifying disclosure. It found that he did not send the March 2021 email relied on in the issues, and that the 24 September 2021 email did not contain disclosures of Covid restriction breaches or reports of such concerns by other team members. The email referred to alleged bullying by Mr Nixon, but not by Mr Finch, and the tribunal found that the claimant's belief that the disclosure was in the public interest, or that it tended to show danger to health and safety, was not reasonable. It also found that he did not tell Mr Finch or Mr Hodges that he had sent the email.

On whistleblowing detriment, the tribunal found that most of the alleged treatment did not occur. The only matters established were the refusal to make a payment in lieu of untaken holiday at the point claimed, and the taking of disciplinary proceedings. The first was not a detriment because the claimant was allowed to carry holiday forward, and the second was not done on the ground of any protected disclosure. The tribunal therefore dismissed all claims and recorded that no remedy issues arose.