In person For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a remote preliminary hearing on 9 October 2020 before Employment Judge Elliott sitting alone. No oral evidence was heard under Rule 95. The issue was whether the claimant had shown that she was likely to succeed in an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures, so as to justify interim relief under ss.128-129 ERA 1996. The tribunal applied the Taplin, Dandpat and Sarfraz line of authority and treated the test as a high one, requiring a summary assessment of whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of success.

The claimant relied on 19 alleged disclosures made between November 2019 and August 2020. They concerned delay in grievance handling, stress, health and safety compliance, line management structure, sickness records, grievance fairness, ACAS Code issues and, at the disciplinary hearing, data protection concerns. The judge accepted that the grievance process had taken many months, but held that the materials available at the hearing did not show a sufficiently strong basis for concluding that the disclosures were made in the public interest rather than in the claimant's own personal interest. The tribunal also noted that some of the statements relied on were questions or requests for information rather than clear disclosures of information.

On causation, the respondent's case was that dismissal followed a significant breakdown in working relationships, as reflected in Ms Manning's HR review, Ms Croft's independent review and the disciplinary process that culminated in dismissal on 21 August 2020 for misconduct and fundamental breakdown in the relationship. The judge noted that the disciplinary papers did not refer to the alleged protected disclosures and said the issue would need to be tested by cross-examination at a full hearing. On the material available, the claimant had not shown that it was likely that the tribunal would find the disclosures were protected or that they were the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The interim relief application therefore failed and no order for continuation of employment was made.