Mr N Mendy v Motorola Solutions UK Limited and 5 others — 2020

This was a remote interim relief hearing on the claimant's application under s.128 ERA 1996 arising from an alleged automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. The claimant had been employed by Motorola Solutions UK Limited from 16 July 2018 until his summary dismissal on 5 May 2020. The tribunal recorded that his line manager was Ronan Despres, that Martin Woodford investigated his whistleblowing concerns, and that Fergus Mayne conducted the disciplinary process that ended in dismissal.

Applying the Taplin and Chackro approach to interim relief, the tribunal considered the alleged disclosures made on 16 January 2020 and 13 February 2020. It found there were at least questions over whether all of the January disclosures were qualifying disclosures, and it concluded that the MSO Radio Switch point raised on 13 February did not appear to disclose information tending to show a breach of legal obligation. However, it was satisfied that the claimant was likely to succeed in showing that his main point about the UN customer discount in items 5 to 7 of the 16 January letter was a protected disclosure, because there was probably at least a technical contractual breach and the matter was likely to be in the public interest.

Even so, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was likely to show that that disclosure, or any other alleged protected disclosure, was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. It noted that the disciplinary process had begun on 26 November 2019, before the protected disclosures relied on for interim relief, and found that Mr Mayne's dismissal letter relied on a number of conduct issues that could reasonably be treated as gross misconduct or a complete breakdown in working relations. Those matters included the claimant's emails accusing colleagues and managers of racism in highly charged terms, and his responses to management requests in lengthy, rude or inflammatory emails.

The tribunal considered Jhuti, but said this was not a case where false evidence had been invented and presented to the dismissing officer. It accepted that Mr Niske and Mr Woodford might be relevant under Jhuti principles, but found no evidence that either had influenced Mr Mayne to dismiss because of protected disclosures. It therefore dismissed the application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996.