Mr Jake Davies, counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by EngineF Operating Ltd only, not by EngineF Holding Ltd, and that all claims against the first respondent therefore failed. It also recorded that there was no claim for breach of contract or unlawful deduction from wages. The claimant’s case proceeded on ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, detriment for whistleblowing under s.47B ERA 1996, and indirect race discrimination.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal considered eight alleged disclosures and concluded that none were protected disclosures. It found, among other things, that the claimant’s concerns about the Keystone legal opinion, the £70,000 transfer, Wired World Ltd, expense entries, the Neyber bids, the £9,400 salary payment, and the alleged AIP debt either did not amount to a disclosure of information, did not involve a reasonable belief that a relevant failure had occurred or would occur, or were not made in the public interest. On that basis, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A failed, and the detriment claims under s.47B also failed.

The tribunal rejected the remaining detriment allegations as well. It found that the redundancy warnings, consultation steps, suspension of email access after the claimant sent sensitive material to his personal account, the bid-related instructions, and the communication of alleged misconduct were either justified management actions or not made out on the evidence. It also found that the claimant did not engage with the consultation process and did not pursue the appeal.

On indirect race discrimination, the claimant relied on a requirement to move to India as a condition of alternative employment and said that, as a Pakistani national, he would face visa difficulty. The tribunal accepted that the company’s proposed relocation to India was connected to securing the business’s long-term viability, but held that the claimant was never actually required to move and that, in any event, the measure was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. On unfair dismissal, it found a genuine redundancy situation, held that the dismissal was attributable to redundancy, and concluded the process fell within the range of reasonable responses. No monetary remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.