Mr S Stanton v Overbury plc — 2018

Mr Stanton was employed by Overbury Plc as a Construction Manager on Project Roman. On 2 May 2018 he reported that a Leyton's operative was welding in an exclusion zone on floor 8 and spraying molten metal onto lower floors. The tribunal accepted that this was a qualifying disclosure and held that it was protected when made to Mr Vaitkus under section 43C(1)(a) ERA 1996. It rejected the alternative section 43C(1)(b)(ii) route because it would not have been reasonable to believe that Mr Vaitkus was legally responsible for Leyton's work.

The tribunal held that the second disclosure on 19 July 2018 was not a qualifying disclosure. Mr Stanton told Mr McKinley and Mr Holmes that there had been numerous other health and safety issues with Leyton's, but he did not give further particulars. Applying Kilraine, the tribunal found that the information lacked sufficient factual content and specificity. Although Mr Stanton believed Leyton's posed a health and safety risk, that belief was not reasonably held on the information he disclosed.

The third disclosure on 23 July 2018 was also found not to be a qualifying disclosure. Mr Stanton asked Mr Vaitkus why Leyton's had been allowed to remain on site despite numerous health and safety breaches being raised, including the 2 May incident. The tribunal found that this was an enquiry about a decision that had not yet been made, not a complaint that the respondent was breaching a legal obligation under HASAW. It again held that the information lacked sufficient factual content and that any belief that the respondent was in breach was not reasonably held.

On causation, the tribunal found that Mr Howell, who took the dismissal decision on 22 August 2018, was not aware of the first disclosure and had not been told by Mr Knight or Mr Solomon that Mr Stanton had made it. The dismissal was found to have been driven by Mr Howell's view that Mr Stanton was not fitting in with the team and was not showing the required level of commitment, including weekend working, attendance at walkarounds, lack of empathy towards Mr Vaitkus, and the alleged bullying of Mr Holmes. The whistleblowing claim was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.