In Person For the v Mr R Slyons, Consultant — 2020

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Property Maintenance Manager from 15 May 2017 until his dismissal on 4 October 2017. The dispute arose after he raised concerns about confiscated weapons kept in a basement and, on 28 September 2017, told his line manager, JG, that he was worried about weapons in the cellar and about staff safety. The tribunal accepted the note of that meeting as accurate and found that the claimant's statement amounted to a qualifying disclosure under s.43B(1)(d) ERA 1996 because it conveyed information that tended to show a risk to health and safety and was made in the public interest.

The tribunal also accepted that the claimant had, by reasonable means, brought to the employer's attention circumstances connected with his work that he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety, so s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996 was satisfied. It did not accept that s.100(1)(e) applied, because although the claimant had genuine concerns about the weapons, the tribunal did not find that he believed himself or others to be in serious and imminent danger.

On causation, the tribunal accepted that the dismissal followed very shortly after the disclosure, but found that the real reason for dismissal was a breakdown in the working relationship between the claimant and JG. It found that the disclosure formed the backdrop to that breakdown, but was not its cause. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's appeal documents and appeal hearing did not refer to protected disclosure or health and safety as reasons for dismissal. It therefore concluded that the claimant had not shown that his dismissal was automatically unfair under ss.103A or 100 ERA 1996, and all claims were dismissed.