Mr M Chiriac v Serco Limited — 2020

The claimant worked as a Mobile Operative on the London Cycle Hire Scheme. He repeatedly raised concerns about working conditions at Waterloo, including staffing levels, PPE, unsanitary conditions, smoking, and whether operatives should push one or two bicycles at a time. The tribunal found that several of these communications were protected disclosures, including complaints to managers and health and safety staff about understaffing and the operation at Waterloo.

The tribunal dismissed the protected disclosure detriment complaints. It found that earlier investigations, warnings, and suspension were not caused by protected disclosures but by concerns about incidents with members of the public or allegations that needed investigation. It also dismissed the health and safety claims under ss.44 and 100 ERA 1996 because there was a health and safety representative and safety committee, and the claimant had not shown that raising matters through those routes was not reasonably practicable.

The tribunal upheld the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim. It found that the dismissal process was influenced by the claimant's protected disclosures and that he was viewed as an insubordinate troublemaker because of them. The tribunal identified a slanted investigation report, inadequate investigation of the claimant's case about instructions from senior health and safety management, failure to provide relevant witness evidence before the appeal outcome, and wording in the dismissal email referring to his criticism of management and resourcing concerns.

The tribunal made no reduction for contributory conduct, finding the matters relied on by the respondent were not blameworthy. It did order a Polkey reduction: a 50% reduction to any compensatory award for losses arising 8 months or more after dismissal, because it considered there was a significant chance that later avoidable altercations with members of the public could have led to a fair dismissal.