Mr Peter Musgrove v Hartlepool College of Further Education — 2025

The tribunal found that Mr Musgrove’s 25 January 2023 entry on the College’s Every system, saying he was not happy that the fridge contained hazardous materials and lacked a biohazard warning, was a protected disclosure within s.43B(1)(d) ERA 1996. It accepted that he had a reasonable belief that the information tended to show a health and safety risk and that the disclosure was made in the public interest. No other qualifying disclosures were found.

The detriment complaint under s.47B ERA 1996 failed. Although the tribunal accepted that being subjected to a disciplinary process culminating in a stage 2 written warning was a detriment, it found that the process was initiated because of the claimant’s behaviour towards colleagues and his general non-compliant and unco-operative attitude, not because of the protected disclosure. It also held that the detriment claim was out of time: the primary limitation period expired on 26 June 2023, the claim was not presented until 18 January 2024, and it was reasonably practicable to have brought it in time.

The dismissal claims also failed. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy: the College had run a voluntary severance scheme, concluded that demand for the joinery and maintenance technician role had diminished, and treated the claimant as occupying a self-selecting pool of one. It held that consultation was fair, that alternatives were considered and rejected, and that the dismissal was not because the claimant had made a protected disclosure. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint likewise failed because the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as the reason for dismissal. The tribunal dealt with liability only, with no remedy assessment recorded.