in person For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, a BBC head of journalism, alleged six protected disclosures between April and August 2021 concerning the Afghanistan contingency plan, FCDO funding, World Service spending, the handling of a grievance, and the BBC's response to the Afghanistan crisis. The tribunal held that none of the alleged disclosures were protected disclosures for the purposes of section 43A and section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996, and that all detriment claims under section 47B therefore failed.

For the 1 April and 2 May 2021 emails about the Afghanistan emergency plan, the tribunal accepted there was some disclosure of information, but found the claimant did not have a reasonably held belief that the BBC was under a legal obligation to implement the plan immediately or that the pleaded health and safety failure existed. It found the contingency plan remained current, that delay in communicating it did not amount to a failure to implement it, and that the claimant's belief was not reasonable in light of his seniority and access to information.

For the 31 May 2021 funding email and the 6 July 2021 World Service spending email, the tribunal held the claimant's assertions were speculative or unsupported. It found no reasonable basis to believe there had been a concealed agreement compromising editorial independence, and no reasonable basis to believe that spending £251 million against a budget of £254 million meant the BBC had breached a legal obligation. The tribunal found he understood a budget was not the same as a legal duty to spend the full amount.

For the 22 August and 25 August 2021 emails, the tribunal found the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that the grievance handling involved fraud, breach of grievance procedures, a miscarriage of justice, criminal negligence, or breach of a legal health and safety duty. It also found there was no reasonable basis for the allegation of concealment. The tribunal characterised the claimant's approach as a personal campaign driven by disagreement with management decisions, and held the alternative detriment allegations were also not made out because the challenged actions were reasonable managerial responses or were not objectively detrimental.

On the victimisation claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's earlier employment tribunal proceedings for race discrimination on 2 January 2016 were a protected act. It nevertheless found that his removal on 18 August 2021 from hearing a grievance was because he was needed to focus on his role during the Afghanistan crisis, not because he had brought those proceedings. The tribunal dismissed the section 27 Equality Act 2010 claim and made no monetary award.