Mr Shaun Burgess v James Jones and Sons (Pallets and Packaging) Limited — 2019

Mr Shaun Burgess alleged unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures, and detriment on the ground of protected disclosure. The tribunal found that he made protected disclosures on 9 January 2019 when he wrote and told RS about exposed electrical wires on pallet bench one. It held that from 10 January onwards he no longer held a reasonable belief, after RS had told him maintenance had said the issue was not dangerous, although it went on in the alternative to consider the later disclosures and detriment allegations as if all of P1 to P9 were protected disclosures.

The tribunal rejected the detriment allegations. It found that RS had already raised the same safety issue before the claimant, had not ignored him, had not called him abusive names, and had not threatened to sack him. It also found no detriment in DC's suspension correspondence, the enclosed bullying policy, the request for the safety start-up sheets, or KS's conduct of the disciplinary process, because those acts were explained by the canteen incident and the claimant's bullying complaint rather than the protected disclosures.

On the dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the respondent established conduct as the reason for dismissal. It found that on 18 January 2019 the claimant swore at RS and refused to leave the canteen briefing in front of colleagues, and that KS dismissed him for that misconduct. The dismissal was found to be within the range of reasonable responses, so the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim failed. However, the procedure was unfair because KS both investigated and chaired the hearing. Applying Polkey, the tribunal found that an independent investigation would still have led to dismissal, so there was no compensatory award. It observed that the claimant would be entitled to a basic award, but the amount was left for a remedy hearing.