In Person For the v Paul Brill (Solicitor with Cordant Group) — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's application for interim relief in relation to a protected-disclosure unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal noted that there were also other complaints which appeared to relate to disability and nationality, but those were not before it. The legal test applied was whether the claimant had a "pretty good chance" of succeeding at the final hearing, with reference to Taplin v C Shippam Ltd and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, under ERA 1996 ss 128(1)(a), 129(1)(a) and 130 in relation to the interim relief application and s.103A / s.43B in relation to the underlying whistleblowing claim.

The claimant was employed by Cordant Recruitment Ltd t/a PMP Recruitment under a written contract dated 17 September 2020 and had been supplied to Amazon at Pontefract Lane, Leeds. The respondent's evidence was that the Amazon assignment ended because of reduced demand after Christmas and that 160 workers were removed from the site. Mr Kempster said the claimant had been selected using attendance and performance data, and that the claimant had received a "record of concern" because his records showed fewer hours completed than scheduled.

The claimant had difficulty identifying the disclosures he relied on. The examples he eventually gave were complaints that loading the lorries was heavy work and he had stomach pain, that he had been unfairly accused of five unauthorised absences connected with illness or Covid-related isolation, and that he had been required to work six-day back-to-back shifts. The tribunal recorded that these were not written, were about his own contract and personal workplace concerns, and that Mr Kempster said he was unaware of any such disclosures.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of establishing a qualifying disclosure made in the public interest, and it considered that only one possible issue might arguably have had that character, namely the claimant's allegation about a Covid isolation policy. It also found that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of proving that he had been dismissed at all. The emails sent by Mr Kempster on 26 and 27 January 2021 stated that the claimant's employment remained active, that he could seek alternative assignments, and that a return to Amazon could not be ruled out if demand increased. The application for interim relief was therefore refused and no order was made.