Mr Ian Ritson v Milan Babic Architects Ltd — 2023

Mr Ian Ritson, an architect employed by Milan Babic Architects Ltd from 23 April 2018, raised concerns on 3 April 2020 about being asked to do work while on furlough. The tribunal found that his messages reflected his understanding that working while furloughed might breach the CJRS rules, but they did not amount to qualifying disclosures under s.43B ERA because they did not disclose a past or current breach and, on the tribunal's findings, he did not have a subjective belief that he was making the disclosures in the public interest.

The tribunal nevertheless found that some of the complained-of acts occurred and amounted to detriments: the 3 April 2020 message from Mr Babic saying "It's your choice today but it will be mine later", the redundancy process was not a genuine consultation and breached the employer's own procedure, and the later 20 April 2020 email was threatening in tone. However, the tribunal found these acts were motivated by Mr Babic's frustration with the Claimant's position on furlough work, the Respondent's cash-flow concerns during the pandemic, and the approaching two-year service point, rather than by any protected disclosure.

The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that the pandemic had a significant financial impact and that delayed furlough payments created a cash-flow problem. The tribunal found that the Claimant was selected because he was the highest earner, alongside Mr Poplett being made redundant at the same time, and that the Respondent had also considered furlough and unpaid leave before deciding redundancies were needed.

The s.105 ERA claim also failed because the tribunal found that employees in similar positions, including Mr Somora and Ms Almeida, were not dismissed, and that the Claimant's selection was not because he had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal therefore dismissed all of the Claimant's complaints.