Mr R Garnett v Ashford Specsavers Hearcare Ltd — 2022

Mr R Garnett brought an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 against Ashford Specsavers Hearcare Ltd. The tribunal found that he made protected disclosures on 26 February 2019, 7 March 2019 and 29 May 2019 about chemical smells and fumes from the optical lab at Ashford, and that he raised those concerns because of possible health and safety risks to himself, a pregnant colleague, other staff and customers.

The tribunal held that the disclosures were qualifying protected disclosures. It accepted that the claimant genuinely believed the information tended to show a health and safety risk, that belief was reasonable, and that the disclosures were made in the public interest. In reaching that conclusion it relied on the strength and chemical nature of the smells, the lab's use of chemicals, the proximity of the lab to the claimant's workplace, his own breathing symptoms, and the fact that the health and safety audit did not resolve the concern.

The claim nevertheless failed because the tribunal found that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was not any protected disclosure. It found that by 17 June 2019 the respondent understood that the claimant would not resume the Partner Development Programme and no longer wanted to work for the business. The tribunal also found that the record-keeping investigation was genuine, ended with no disciplinary action, and was not a pretext. Although it described the dismissal process as lacking in formality, it did not find that the protected disclosures were any part of the reason for dismissal, so the claim was dismissed.