Mr M Boyd First v Luxfer Gas Cylinders Limited t/a Superform Second Respondent: Mr D Bosworth — 2021

The claimant worked for the first respondent as a self-employed panel beater from 1 July 2019 until his contract ended on 2 August 2019. He brought claims for public interest disclosure detriment, race harassment, and victimisation. After hearing evidence, the tribunal dismissed all claims. There was no award of compensation.

On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal found that the only matter capable of amounting to a protected disclosure was the claimant's report to Mr Dade about the security gate, which it held satisfied s.43B(1)(d) ERA 1996 because it raised a health and safety issue. However, the tribunal found that this disclosure did not cause the claimant any detriment and was not the reason his contract ended. It found that Mr Bosworth did not know the claimant had raised the gate issue, and that the termination was instead because the claimant was regarded as a disruptive influence.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's other alleged disclosures. It found that the allegation about Mr Dade being intoxicated by alcohol was first raised only after the contract had already ended, and that the other alleged health and safety concerns were not made out on the evidence. The tribunal also found no qualifying disclosure in relation to the forklift allegation because the alleged incident did not occur as described.

On the race harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010, the majority of the tribunal found that the alleged racist verbal abuse was not proved. The tribunal accepted that the night shift environment involved heavy swearing, insults, and an unpleasant atmosphere, but held that this did not amount to unwanted conduct related to race on the findings made. The victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 also failed because the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved a protected act. It therefore found no causal link between any protected act and the termination of his contract.