Mr L Franco de Godoy v H & L Trading Ltd — 2022

The claimant, Mr L Franco de Godoy, worked for H & L Trading Ltd from March 2020 to 11 May 2020. After he was moved from graphic design work to packing and dispatching duties during lockdown, he said he developed back pain from bending over a table that was too low. The tribunal accepted that he raised the issue repeatedly in emails on 19 April, 29 April and 11 May 2020, and that those emails contained sufficient factual content to amount to disclosures of information rather than bare allegations.

The tribunal found that the claimant subjectively and reasonably believed his disclosures were made in the public interest and tended to show that the health or safety of an individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. It relied on the content of the emails, the claimant's description of the pain, the reference to the table height, and the GP advice forwarded on 11 May 2020 about safe working, adjustments, rest breaks and a mid-week rest day. Applying the statutory whistleblowing framework and the authorities it cited, the tribunal held that the claimant had made protected disclosures to his employer.

The tribunal also found that the respondent dismissed the claimant by email on 11 May 2020, when it said it had discussed the matter, that the role was not helping him, that it was better to end the job, and that he did not need to work there from then on. It preferred the claimant's evidence about the 8 May 2020 conversation and found that the reason for dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures. The tribunal therefore upheld the automatic unfair dismissal claim. It also upheld the wrongful dismissal / notice pay claim, finding that the claimant's notice period was one week, that he had not been paid for it, and that there was no gross misconduct or other basis for summary dismissal.

The tribunal further found that, when proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide written particulars of employment. It noted that the claimant had referred to not having a contract in his 19 April 2020 email. Liability was determined in this judgment only, and the tribunal recorded that a remedy hearing would be listed separately.