Mrs L Mankau, Counsel v Trackwork Ltd — 2019

The claimant was employed as a track maintenance supervisor from 8 October 2018 to 21 December 2018. The tribunal found that he had been recruited to take over from an unavailable supervisor and had been instructed by Mr Airey to implement the respondent’s NR019 safe system of work. The claimant raised concerns on 26 October 2018, 2 November 2018, and on further occasions that operatives were not following the safe system of work and were not giving COSS briefings or completing the expected documentation.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures to the respondent and that he had a reasonable belief that the information was in the public interest. It also found that he was designated to carry out health and safety activities and was carrying them out during the relevant period. However, the tribunal held that those matters were not the principal reason for dismissal.

Instead, the tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant because his attempts to implement NR019 created friction with the workforce and upset within a loyal team, against a background of mismanaged expectations and poor communication within the respondent’s management. The tribunal considered that the claimant was acting on the instructions he had been given, but that the respondent had not properly briefed the rest of the workforce about the intended change, so relations soured and concerns about his integration arose.

The tribunal therefore dismissed both the section 100(1)(a) and section 103A claims. It expressly rejected Mr Hunter’s suggestion that the claimant was dangerous and found instead that he was a safe and competent health and safety officer. No monetary remedy was awarded.