Alexander Richardson v HMO NE Limited t/a Forevercare — 2021

Alexander Richardson was employed by HMO NE Limited t/a Forevercare from 17 October 2017 until his dismissal on 3 December 2018. He began as Business Development Manager and later worked as a Senior Support Worker. The tribunal found that the business and the claimant's role were managed in a casual and poorly documented way, but it rejected the claimant's case that his dismissal or earlier treatment were driven by protected disclosures about most of the matters he raised.

The tribunal rejected the alleged protected disclosures concerning Julia Hall, fire safety, Kieran Patel working unsupervised, Julie Curran, the agency-staff cancellation incident, and the alleged comment about a young person's drug debts. It found that some matters were not disclosed in the way alleged, some were only vague grievances about management or role responsibilities, and others did not amount to qualifying disclosures because the claimant did not reasonably believe they tended to show a relevant legal failure or were made in the public interest. The tribunal did find one protected disclosure: in November 2018 the claimant told Deborah McGinlay that Kieran Patel was saying agency staff could have DBS checks fast-tracked and that staff might be working without proper safer recruitment checks. That disclosure was held to be protected under section 47B ERA 1996.

On the dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed after a short meeting on 3 December 2018 following allegations about a WhatsApp message aimed at Amy Rogerson, the claimant's attendance at a GUM clinic with a young person and his own STD test, and a racial slur allegation arising from a deleted message. It held that the principal reason for dismissal was the breakdown in relations between the claimant and Deborah McGinlay. It treated the conduct issues as part of the background and found that the DBS-check disclosure was at most a subsidiary reason, not the principal reason. The unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 therefore failed.

The tribunal upheld the post-employment detriment complaint in relation to Deborah McGinlay's unsolicited call to the claimant's new employer, Pinpoint Recruitment. It found that the call was intended to "bad mouth" the claimant and that the respondent had not shown the ground on which it was made. The tribunal held that the claimant's protected disclosure about DBS checks materially influenced that decision. It said the complaint succeeded only to that limited extent and that the remedy would be limited to compensation for injury to feelings, with no financial loss shown. It provisionally assessed the appropriate award as lying within the lower end of the lower Vento band and directed the parties to say whether a remedy hearing was required.

The holiday pay claim failed because the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to allow the tribunal to determine his entitlement on termination. Although the respondent said it had paid £1,228.08 in holiday pay and the tribunal thought the payslips appeared consistent with payment, it made no final finding that any further sum was due.