Case 2417478/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hetherington v Easyfit Blinds Limited t/a A1 Blinds — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417478/2020
- Decision date
- 22 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hetherington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Easyfit Blinds from 10 May 2019 and returned from furlough on 8 June 2020. The tribunal found that on 11 June 2020 he raised concerns with Mr Marshall about the Covid risk of entering high-rise flats such as Vallum Court, and that on 15 and 16 June 2020 he raised concerns about the adequacy of the PPE provided. It also found that on 15 June 2020 he told Mr Marshall that statements on the respondent’s website about its Covid-safety measures were not truthful.
On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal held that the 11 June 2020 conversation was a qualifying disclosure within section 43B(1)(d) ERA 1996 because the claimant reasonably believed the Covid risk in high-rise blocks could endanger his own health and safety and that of others, and because the disclosure was made in the public interest. It held that the PPE complaint on 15 and 16 June 2020 was not protected because the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that health and safety was endangered, and that the website complaint was not protected because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant reasonably believed the public had been told information that endangered health and safety.
On the health and safety dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the respondent had implemented Covid precautions, provided PPE, and used a pre-visit script for customer appointments. It held that the claimant did not reasonably believe there were circumstances of danger that were serious and imminent, and that refusing to attend high-rise flats or returning the job card was not an appropriate step within section 100(1)(e) and section 100(2) ERA 1996. It also found that the claimant was dismissed solely because of the customer complaint made on 17 June 2020 that he had offered a customer "a bag of green", which the tribunal accepted was genuine. The appeal was also rejected for the same reason. The section 38 Employment Act 2002 claim failed because the claimant did not succeed on his dismissal claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 100(1)(e) ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant did raise Covid-safety concerns, but held there were no circumstances of danger which he reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, and that his refusal to attend high-rise flats was not an appropriate step to protect himself or others. It found the sole reason for dismissal was the customer complaint on 17 June 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim under section 103A ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the 11 June 2020 conversation about high-rise flats was a protected disclosure, but found that the 15 and 16 June PPE complaint and the website complaint were not protected disclosures. It held that dismissal was solely because of the customer complaint, not because of any protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 claim for failure to give a written statement of employment particulars failed because the claimant did not succeed in his dismissal claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s.100(2) ERA 1996
- Section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.
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.