In person For the v Mr P Warnes – EEF Limited — 2023

The claimant advanced two final complaints: automatic unfair constructive dismissal by reason of protected disclosure under section 103A ERA 1996, and victimisation under sections 27 and 39 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the alleged report to Aptiv on 13 February 2019 did not amount to a qualifying disclosure. It held that the contemporaneous Aptiv note was the best evidence of what was said, that the claimant had put forward only general allegations, that he had not shown the necessary factual content to tend to show a relevant legal breach, and that he had not shown a reasonable belief that the report was made in the public interest.

The tribunal also found that the employment ended by resignation, not dismissal. It interpreted the claimant's emails of 24, 25 and 26 March 2019 to JB as evincing a resignation, accepted by JB on 26/27 March 2019 with an effective termination date of 30 March 2019. On the constructive dismissal issue, the tribunal held that the respondent's decision to treat the grievance email as a formal grievance, to appoint an external investigator, and to proceed with the investigation did not amount to a breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned before the investigation outcome was issued and before any fundamental breach could be made out.

On victimisation, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had made a protected act at the meeting with SM on 5 October 2018, finding that he had not referred to conscious or unconscious bias there. It accepted that the grievance email of 8 February 2019 was a protected act, but held that the subsequent steps taken by the respondent did not amount to detriments caused by that protected act. The tribunal concluded that no prima facie case of victimisation was established and that the claim failed. Both claims were dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.