Claimant v Manne v Poundland Ltd — 2017

At the interim relief hearing on 14 July 2017, Employment Judge Baron considered Mr V Manne’s application under s.128 ERA 1996 after Poundland Limited had dismissed him on 24 June 2017. The claimant said the dismissal was for protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996, relying on complaints about safety shoes or boots and the obstruction of fire extinguishers at the Brixton Road store. The respondent accepted the dismissal and accepted that the claimant had disclosed information said to fall within s.43B(1)(d), but did not accept that any such disclosure was a protected disclosure or that it was the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal.

The tribunal approached the application on the summary basis required by s.129 ERA 1996 and Rule 95 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and referred to Taplin v C Shippam Ltd, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, and London City Airport Ltd v Chacko on the meaning of “likely” and the limited nature of the interim relief exercise. No oral evidence was heard. The judge recorded that it did not need to decide whether the claimant had made a protected disclosure, because the application failed on causation in any event.

On the material before the tribunal, the original complaint about safety equipment had been raised in June 2016 and had been considered at the time. The claimant later sent other emails and grievance material, but those documents were mainly about wider grievances, discrimination, harassment, hours and holidays. When the claimant revived the safety-shoes issue in June 2017, it sat alongside a range of other complaints. The tribunal also noted that the respondent invited the claimant to a meeting on 24 May 2017 before the 14 June 2017 email headed as whistleblowing, and that the dismissal letter referred to a breakdown in working relationships and loss of trust.

The tribunal concluded that, whether or not the claimant’s information amounted to a protected disclosure, he had not shown it was nearly certain that the full tribunal would find the protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. For that reason, the interim relief application failed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.