Case 2406953/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Heys v Atic Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406953/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Heys
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form presented on 22 June 2023 brought automatic unfair dismissal claims under s103A ERA 1996 (protected disclosure) and s100 ERA 1996 (health and safety), together with breach of contract and holiday pay. At the interim relief hearing on 8 August 2023, Employment Judge Howard sat alone, the respondent did not attend, and the judge said he was not making findings of fact but deciding whether the claimant had shown a likely prospect of success for interim relief under s128 and s129 ERA 1996.
On the protected disclosure ground, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was likely to show that he had disclosed information about the absence of a phone mount and charging lead, and that he believed using his phone as navigation without a mount was unsafe and illegal. Interim relief was not granted on that ground because there was no evidence that the disclosure had been made in the public interest; the judge found the concern appeared to be focused on the claimant's own safety rather than a wider public interest.
On the health and safety ground, the tribunal found it likely that there was no health and safety representative or committee available, or that it was not reasonably practicable to raise the issue by that route; that contacting the director directly was a reasonable means of raising the matter; and that the dismissal followed directly after the issue was raised. The dismissal letter referred to the phone-holder dispute as a contributing factor, and the tribunal found no evidence to support the broader misconduct allegations.
Because the application succeeded and the respondent did not attend, the tribunal made a continuation of employment order. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he had been paid £15 per hour for 40 hours a week, had earned £7,099.28 gross over 15 weeks, and calculated gross weekly pay at £473.28 and monthly pay at £2,050.90. The order required payment of £3,786.24 for salary to 8 August 2023, £1,135.87 for salary to 25 August 2023, then £2,050.90 on the normal monthly pay date until determination or settlement, together with re-enrolment into the pension scheme and employer contributions, subject to normal deductions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief was refused on the s103A ERA 1996 protected disclosure ground. The tribunal considered it likely that the claimant had disclosed information about the lack of a phone mount and charging lead, but found no evidence that the disclosure was made in the public interest. This was not a final determination of the substantive claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Interim relief succeeded on the s100 ERA 1996 health and safety ground. The tribunal found it likely that there was no safety representative or committee available, that raising the issue directly with the director was a reasonable means of complaint, and that the dismissal followed in direct response. This was not a final determination of the substantive claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129(1) ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] IRLR 450
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(c)(i)&(ii) ERA 1996
- Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd v Acheson and ors [2003] IRLR 683
- Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti [2017] EWCA Civ 1632
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.