Mr D. Gil v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal heard a preliminary strike-out application in the consolidated claims. It accepted the respondent's rule 37 application and struck out all claims because they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The first claim concerned alleged protected disclosures from January 2021 and September/October 2022 and a series of detriments. On the 2021 matters, the claimant complained about self-isolation rules and team arrangements, then complained to Westminster City Council and the local government ombudsman. The tribunal found the respondent's replies were factual and courteous, saw no reasonable prospect of showing a detriment, and held that any grievance about them was not shown to be because of protected disclosures. It also noted that the earlier matters were very much out of time.

On the September and October 2022 emails about flexible furlough, the tribunal said the claimant may have believed there had been wrongdoing, but it was doubtful that belief was reasonable given the respondent's explanation of its furlough approach. The later complaints about clocking-in and the alleged failure to repay furlough money were not shown to be detriments at all, and the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of proving a causal link with any protected disclosure.

The second claim alleged constructive unfair dismissal based on delay in the grievance process, perpetuation of sickness, and anticipated delay on appeal. The tribunal found the emails showed no untoward delay in arranging the grievance meeting and that the post-meeting delay was explained by the length and complexity of the grievance, the need to interview witnesses, and the Christmas period. It considered the resignation to be better understood as disappointment that the claimant's contentions were not accepted, rather than acceptance of a repudiatory breach, so there was no reasonable prospect of proving constructive dismissal.

The tribunal said that if the claims had not been struck out it would have made deposit orders of £300 for detriments 1 and 2, £500 for the remaining detriments on the first claim, and £500 for the constructive unfair dismissal claim. No substantive remedy was awarded because the claims were struck out.