Mr M Bell v Jet2.com Limited — 2018

The claimant relied on three alleged protected disclosures arising from line check assessments after a flight to Alicante and subsequent grievance correspondence. The tribunal found that the first disclosure conveyed a disagreement about the point of descent, not facts tending to show health and safety endangerment, and was made in the claimant's personal interest. It reached the same conclusion on the second disclosure, which it found concerned disagreement with negative assessment feedback and the claimant's desire to challenge the records.

On the third disclosure, the tribunal found that the email expressed the claimant's personal view that examiners had made false statements or were incompetent, but did not convey facts tending to show health and safety endangerment or deliberate concealment. It found that none of the three disclosures qualified for protection under section 43B ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that the alleged detriments in the assessment and grievance processes were not made out. It accepted that the assessment and grievance processes were carried out in accordance with the respondent's procedures and that the outcomes were reasonable management responses. It also found that the claimant resigned voluntarily because he was unhappy with the grievance appeal outcome and did not want to continue working for the respondent, so the section 103A constructive unfair dismissal complaint failed.