Case 1803288/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Meloy v University of Leeds Heard by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803288/2021
- Decision date
- 21 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
- Panel members
- Ms H Brown, Mr I W Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Meloy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Meloy was a Health and Safety Manager in the University of Leeds' FEPS. After concerns about reopening the engineering buildings following the first lockdown, he sent emails on 20, 22 and 23 June 2020 about fire safety, water hygiene and air conditioning checks, and he suspended visits and operations when he said he had not received written assurances. The tribunal heard claims under section 44 ERA 1996, section 47B ERA 1996 and unfair dismissal, although the unfair dismissal claim was later withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted that Mr Meloy had been designated to carry out health and safety activities, but it held that the formal investigation and disciplinary process were not imposed because he carried out those activities or because he made protected disclosures. Its view was that those steps were about the manner in which he communicated, ignored Mr Veevers' instruction, and acted without prior discussion with management. The whistleblowing detriment claim failed for the same causation reasons, and the reputational-damage complaint also failed.
The tribunal did find that removal from his FEPS post in June 2020, and the later decision in January 2021 to keep him in a central services role, were detriments done on the ground that he had carried out health and safety activities. It treated the June 2020 move and the January 2021 decision as a series of similar acts, so the claim was in time because the last act was 14 January 2021. The section 44(1)(e) claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that he reasonably believed the danger was serious and imminent. The judgment records liability only and does not set out any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Section 44(1)(a) ERA 1996 detriment claim. The tribunal found the claimant was designated to carry out health and safety activities and that his removal from the FEPS post, and the later confirmation that he would remain in central services, were detriments done because he carried out those activities. The claim was in time because the last act was on 14 January 2021. The tribunal rejected the linked investigation, disciplinary and reputation allegations under this ground. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Section 44(1)(e) ERA 1996 detriment claim. The tribunal held the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that the danger was serious and imminent, so the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Section 47B ERA 1996 detriment claim based on protected disclosures. The tribunal held the investigation, disciplinary action and alleged reputational damage were about the claimant's manner, approach and authority to act, not because he made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant did not pursue the unfair dismissal claims at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.44(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.44(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s.44(2) ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48(3) ERA 1996
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester material influence test
- Shinwari v Vue Entertainment Ltd separability approach
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed
- Castano v London General Transport Services Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.