Mr C Maddocks v Gledhill Response Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that Mr Maddocks made some limited disclosures, including asking Mr Hodkinson at induction about engineers carrying out Part P electrical work, raising the ELECSA logo issue with Mr Hodkinson, and including wider safe-systems-of-work concerns in his grievance of 8 November 2019. It rejected other alleged disclosures, including the alleged January 2019 discussion with Mr Beverley and the fit note of 25 October 2019 as qualifying disclosures.

The detriment claims failed. The tribunal found that the delay in sending monthly reviews was an administrative issue and not linked to any disclosure, that the company van was collected because the claimant was signed off sick and the respondent needed to reallocate it, and that there was no evidence that disciplinary action was taken because of whistleblowing or health and safety matters.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded as an ordinary unfair dismissal, not as an automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant was not in repudiatory breach of contract, so section 86(6) ERA did not apply and the one week's statutory notice counted towards continuous service. It held that the investigation and dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses because the claimant received the detailed tracker material only the day before the hearing, his request to postpone was unreasonably refused, and the decision relied on flawed calculations and an incorrect view of the overtime position. The tribunal said there would be no Polkey reduction and indicated that, for remedy purposes, it would assess contributory fault at 25%, but no final compensation figure was determined in this liability judgment.