In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The Claimant, an HGV driver and health and safety representative, emailed Transport Manager Mr Spurr on 30 August 2019 saying that health and safety representatives had not been consulted before policy and procedure changes connected with the TUPE transfer to Wincanton. The tribunal held that this was a protected disclosure and also that he was performing health and safety representative functions. It also found that the petition about his role, started by colleagues on 5 September 2019, was not organised or facilitated by Wincanton managers and had no causal link to that disclosure. The tribunal further held that the grievance handling about the petition was not taken seriously in the sense that it was not properly considered, but the reason was a superficial view of the matter as union business, not the protected disclosure.

In December 2019 and January 2020 the Claimant raised concerns that Wincanton was changing health and safety arrangements without proper consultation and that drivers were being asked to sign documents about store risk assessments. The tribunal found that his email to Ms Eanor on 17 December 2019 and his discussion with Mr O'Loughlin on 3 January 2020 were protected disclosures and health and safety activities. However, it rejected the allegation that the subsequent rota change on 9 January 2020 was caused by those disclosures, accepting Ms Breen's evidence that she changed the rota because she understood the Claimant did not want shunt duties after the 30 December 2019 incident. It also rejected the allegation that starting disciplinary proceedings over the 27 November 2019 accident, or continuing the disciplinary process until 20 April 2020, was done because of the disclosures.

The tribunal accepted that the Claimant's 7 October 2019 email asking that safety representatives be consulted before the induction training was rolled out was health and safety activity. It found that Mr Stott did not refuse to engage with that request and that the training materials had already been created centrally. But it held that the Claimant was subjected to a detriment by being the only driver singled out to attend the training on his own on 18 November 2019, whereas others attended in groups. The respondent did not prove why he alone was scheduled in that way, and the tribunal found that this was done because he was performing health and safety representative functions. The later request for the nine principles document on 24 February 2020 was not refused in substance, so Detriment 9 failed. This liability judgment did not quantify any monetary remedy.