Miss Alda Simoes v De Sede UK Limited — 2018

Miss Alda Simoes was employed from 29 June 2018 as a sales assistant at the Respondent’s Harrods concession. She was notified on 10 August 2018 that her probationary employment was being terminated, her notice ran to 17 August 2018, and the Tribunal accepted that a dismissal had occurred. The dismissal letter did not give a substantive reason, although the Respondent later relied on conduct, performance, and an alleged alcohol issue.

On the section 104 claim, the Tribunal accepted that on 27 July 2018 the Claimant was clearly complaining about being required to work 14 consecutive days and that she reasonably believed this raised an issue under regulation 11 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. Applying Spaceman v ISS Mediclean Ltd, however, the Tribunal held that section 104 requires an allegation that the employer has already infringed a statutory right. It found that the Claimant’s complaint was forward-looking and that no breach had crystallised by 27 July, so the section 104 claim failed.

On the section 103A claim, the Tribunal found that the Claimant’s concerns about the graffiti-logo proposal amounted to a protected disclosure under section 43B(1)(a), but that this was not a reason for dismissal. It also accepted that she reasonably believed the concerns about expensive bags without security tags could involve criminal or health and safety issues, but found the evidence did not show a qualifying disclosure to the employer or another responsible person, and in any event it was not the principal reason for dismissal. The complaint about working 14 days was linked to a possible breach and health and safety, but the Tribunal held it failed the public interest requirement because the Claimant said it was "to do with me".

In the alternative causation analysis, the Tribunal found that several matters contributed to the decision, but the principal reason for dismissal was the Claimant’s complaint about working hours. Because the statutory elements of section 104 and section 103A were not satisfied, both automatic unfair dismissal claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.