Mr. J Joseph v Wincaton Group Limited — 2024

Mr J Joseph applied for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996 pending his claim that Wincaton Group Ltd had automatically unfairly dismissed him for making protected disclosures under section 103A ERA. The application was initially rejected as out of time, but on reconsideration it was accepted after Employment Judge Burge accepted Mr Joseph's evidence that he did not know of the dismissal until he opened the dismissal letter on 7 May 2024 and presented his ET1 on 14 May 2024. The interim relief hearing took place on 25 June 2024, with no oral evidence heard under rule 95 and the tribunal instead considering the written material and submissions.

The tribunal recorded seven alleged disclosures between 21 December 2022 and 11 February 2024, mostly emails said to concern health and safety issues. It noted that five of the seven alleged disclosures were produced, that some of the communications appeared to be suggestions rather than disclosures of information, and that it was not clear on the material before it whether all or any of them were made in the public interest or with the reasonable belief required by section 43B ERA 1996. The tribunal said one alleged disclosure may have met the threshold, but on the summary interim-relief test it could not conclude that any or all of the alleged disclosures were likely to satisfy the statutory definition of a protected disclosure.

On causation, the respondent said Mr Joseph was terminated because he had been absent without authorisation and had not contacted the business, and that the dismissing officer, Mr Brodie, did not know about the fit note sent on 19 April 2024 or the alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal noted the 23 April 2024 absence letter, the 1 May 2024 dismissal letter, and the dispute of fact about what Mr Brodie knew and why the dismissal decision was taken. Applying the interim relief authorities it cited, including the requirement that the claimant show a 'pretty good chance' of success, the tribunal held that it could not say the protected-disclosure claim was likely to succeed and refused interim relief.