Mr G Jones v TecFlo Limited — 2022

Mr Gary Jones brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure, ordinary unfair dismissal, breach of contract and wrongful dismissal against TecFlo Limited. At the start of the hearing the respondent admitted the breach of contract and wrongful dismissal claims, accepting that salary sacrifice pension payments should have continued during furlough and that the claimant was entitled to the company car benefit for the seven-week notice period that was not served because a payment in lieu was made. Those two heads therefore succeeded by consent.

On the whistleblowing claim, the tribunal found that the claimant's emails of 29 May 2020 and 23 June 2020 did convey that he was being asked to work while on furlough and that TecFlo was not complying with its legal obligations. However, applying the public interest requirement in section 43B ERA 1996 and the authority of Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, it held that the claimant was acting out of personal interest rather than public interest. The tribunal therefore dismissed the section 103A claim and also found that the disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

On ordinary unfair dismissal, TecFlo relied on redundancy. The tribunal rejected that explanation and found there was no genuine redundancy situation. It held that the claimant's sales role remained important to the business during the lockdown, that Mr Wood continued to direct and rely on the claimant's work, that sales were recovering, and that there had been no consultation or appeal. The tribunal concluded that the real reason for dismissal was personal to Mr Wood and connected to the claimant's challenges to his authority, so the dismissal was unfair under section 94 ERA 1996.