in person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant was employed as a mobile patrol officer from 25 May 2015 until his dismissal on 6 April 2021. The dismissal arose from a collision on 25 February 2021, after which the respondent obtained CCTV footage. The tribunal found that the footage showed the claimant looking at a mobile device while driving, not wearing his seatbelt properly, and then colliding with a stationary vehicle. It also found that his incident report omitted the mobile phone use and was materially inaccurate.

Applying the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that Mr Jones genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was reasonable. It rejected the claimant's argument that the CCTV should not have been used because he had withdrawn consent, and held that not providing him with a copy of the CCTV did not cause prejudice. The tribunal also found the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. If it had been necessary, it would have found 100% contributory conduct and a 100% Polkey reduction.

On the whistleblowing claim, the claimant relied on a grievance dated 3 April 2021 and alleged disclosures in 2017 and 2020 concerning parking permits, parking charge notice appeals, and contract response times. The tribunal found that the alleged disclosures were unclear, unsupported, or did not amount to protected disclosures under sections 43A and 43B ERA 1996. It further found that the grievance was raised to bolster the claimant's position in the disciplinary process and was not made in the public interest.

The tribunal also found that Mr Jones knew nothing of the alleged disclosures when deciding to dismiss, and that the grievance played no part in the decision. Mr Taylor-Smith knew of the grievance at appeal stage, but the tribunal found that any disclosure played no part in his decision either. Both the unfair dismissal and section 103A claims were therefore dismissed.