Mr M Tingling v CBRE Managed Services Limited — 2019

The claimant, a long-serving day engineer at Tower 42, was dismissed after the client invoked a contractual site-removal clause. The respondent said this third-party pressure was some other substantial reason. The majority accepted that the client’s continued business was important and found that the respondent understood the client’s reasons, including concerns about unhelpful, unprofessional and disruptive behaviour, alleged failure to carry out instructions, and lack of cooperation.

The majority found that the respondent was not required to investigate the factual accuracy of the client’s allegations, and that its focus on asking the client to reconsider and seeking redeployment was within the range of reasonable responses. It found the claimant faced significant injustice because of his long service and accrued pay and benefits, but that the respondent’s attempts to persuade the client and its redeployment support were adequate. The majority therefore dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim; Dr Weerasinghe dissented on aspects of the unfair dismissal reasoning.

The respondent accepted that four reports about sprinkler and pump issues were protected disclosures, but disputed two others. The tribunal found by majority that the reports relied on as PD1 and PD4 were not protected disclosures because they did not convey sufficient information tending to show a relevant failure. The whistleblowing dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not find that protected disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The detriment claim based on suspension was dismissed by majority because the suspension followed the client’s removal request and was not materially influenced by the protected disclosures found.