In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a Business Analyst / Developer working on PlumZ, objected to the Zurich Commercial Insurance division's UW360 project and repeatedly told managers that it was a fraud, wasteful, technically undeliverable, and being covered up. He sent emails to senior managers, investigated through Zurich's fraud team, then emailed underwriters, the FCA and FINMA. The tribunal accepted that his communications contained sufficient factual content to amount to disclosures of information, but held they were not protected disclosures because it was not reasonable for him to believe they showed criminal conduct, breach of legal obligation, or deliberate concealment, and it was not reasonable for him to believe the disclosures were made in the public interest.

The tribunal found the respondent had repeatedly asked him not to contact underwriters about UW360 or his PlumZ proposals, and held that instruction was reasonable because the underwriter views were already being sought through the UW360 process and the claimant had been told he could raise genuine evidence of fraud through proper channels. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the email and suspension letter were intended to intimidate him. It held that the suspension on 5 March 2019, the disciplinary investigation, and the later disciplinary and appeal process were triggered by his deliberate decision to ignore the instruction and contact underwriters, not by his complaints about UW360.

On dismissal, the tribunal held the principal reason was misconduct, namely failure to follow a reasonable management instruction. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, it found the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct occurred, had reasonable grounds, carried out a fair investigation, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in treating the conduct as gross misconduct. For the same reasons, the wrongful dismissal claim failed: the tribunal held the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and a repudiatory breach. All claims were dismissed. The tribunal also declared the claimant's sending of the internal video to a journalist to be contempt of court and awarded the respondent costs of £371 plus VAT, totalling £445.20.