Mr M Prigmore v Infor (United Kingdom) Limited — 2021

Mr Prigmore was employed by Infor (United Kingdom) Limited as a senior account manager from August 2015. The case arose from commission on the Intersnack deal, including the allocation of commission between the claimant and Monika Harb, the treatment of Optiva PLM, the classification of the deal for commission purposes, and the timing of commission payment. The tribunal heard extensive evidence about the commission plan, the rules of engagement, the split policy, the grievance process, and the events leading to the claimant's resignation on 15 June 2018.

On the wages claim, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the respondent had withheld commission that was properly payable. It found that the 4 September 2017 email exchange with Mr Jung did not amount to a binding agreement for the claimant to receive 100% of the account manager commission. It also found that Mrs Harb had worked on the deal as an account manager before the claimant became involved, that the 70/30 split determined by Mr Oldroyd was not irrational, arbitrary or capricious, and that Optiva PLM was properly included in the element for which Sigurd Eiesland was paid. On the timing issue, the tribunal found that commission was paid when due because the scheme required revenue recognition first, and that the first year cash receipts did not exceed the 75% threshold relied on by the claimant.

On protected disclosures, the tribunal rejected the claimant's first and second alleged disclosures, in the emails of 9 October and 10 November 2017, because it found that he did not then hold the necessary reasonable belief that the disclosures were made in the public interest. It did find that the email to Mr East on 27 December 2017, the grievance email of 3 April 2018, the grievance appeal email of 9 May 2018, and the resignation email of 15 June 2018 were protected disclosures. The tribunal accepted that the 27 December 2017 email raised the ethical issue of commission being paid to Monika Harb, in the context of a large employer with an ethics policy, and that the later grievance documents continued to raise the same issue.

The whistleblowing detriment claim succeeded only in part. The tribunal held that Mr East's 29 December 2017 email, warning the claimant to be careful about raising what others were being paid and saying it could become political, was a detriment caused by the protected disclosure sent to him two days earlier. It also held that the way Mr Niesler conducted the 1 June 2018 meeting was a detriment and that, on the evidence, the respondent had not displaced the inference that the claimant's grievance disclosure materially influenced that treatment. The remaining detriment allegations failed, largely because the relevant decisions predated the protected disclosures relied on, or because the decision-makers were not shown to have known about the disclosure to Mr East.