Claimant v WL Retail Ltd — 2025

The claimant worked as a part-time shop assistant at the respondent's Covent Garden café from 5 May 2023 until 24 April 2024. The tribunal found that she made protected disclosures in WhatsApp messages on 29 November 2023 and 7 December 2023 about the cold temperature in the shop, the open door policy, the absence of a heater, and the fact that she understood the Health and Safety Executive's advice to be that indoor workplaces should be above 16C. It held that those messages disclosed information, were made in the public interest, and were made to the employer.

The tribunal found that the claimant was then subjected to detriment: on 22 December 2023 she was told that 'Alice is on her last straws with you', on 24 December she was told there were 'other issues', and on 10 January 2024 she was called to a disciplinary meeting. It held that the disciplinary meeting was a detriment and that the protected disclosures materially influenced the respondent's treatment of the claimant. It also accepted that other staff were late regularly and were not disciplined, and that the claimant's lateness had little or no impact on customers. It further found that her hours were reduced from January 2024 while other staff worked longer hours and additional staff were recruited.

On dismissal, the tribunal rejected the respondent's stated reasons of lateness, attitude and performance as the real reason and found that the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures. It therefore found automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996. It also held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed because she was dismissed without notice despite a contractual notice period of four weeks, and it rejected the respondent's case that her conduct amounted to repudiatory breach or gross misconduct.

The tribunal also upheld the claims for unpaid April 2024 wages, accrued holiday pay, and breach of contract for unpaid NEST pension contributions in August, September and October 2023. It found that the claimant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate loss by making 38 job applications between April 2024 and May 2025 and by taking some short-term work. Reinstatement and re-engagement were refused because the respondent was entering insolvency and was not trading. The tribunal applied a 10% ACAS uplift to the unfair dismissal, notice pay, unlawful deductions and holiday pay complaints, but reserved quantification of remedy to a separate written judgment.