Mr W Allard v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd — 2023

The claimant was employed as a Service Engineer Level 1 and was dismissed on 27 April 2018 after the respondent applied its Managing For Attendance process. The Tribunal found that the dismissal reason was some other substantial reason, namely unacceptable levels of attendance, and that this was a potentially fair reason. It found the respondent had exercised discretion in applying the attendance process, referred the claimant to occupational health, gave him opportunities to improve his attendance, and was entitled to dismiss within the range of reasonable responses.

The respondent accepted that the claimant made three protected disclosures about a product containing DCM. The Tribunal made no findings about the use of the chemical beyond its relevance to the protected disclosures. It found no proven link between the claimant's use of the product and his absences, and no medical evidence showing that his absences arose from an accident or injury at work.

The Tribunal rejected the six alleged protected disclosure detriments. It found that the request to sign a report and the request to carry out a D exam were ordinary or legitimate workplace requests and not linked to protected disclosures. It found the initial refusal of accompaniment to an investigation meeting caused no detriment because the meeting did not proceed then and the later meeting took place with representation; the raised voices between the claimant and Mr Lucas were due to frustration about returning to duties; the attendance process and dismissal were due to absence levels; and the grievance processing allegation was not factually made out. All claims were dismissed.