Mr R Stirling v Applus RTD UK Limited — 2020

Mr Corbett worked for the respondent and its predecessors from 2007 until he resigned on 19 June 2016, after time at Allerton Steel and then as site supervisor at Lynemouth Power Station. The tribunal accepted that he had raised a number of quality and health and safety concerns over the years, including at Allerton Steel, but held that the earlier matters were out of time and that there was insufficient connection between those historic matters and the later complaints at Lynemouth for them to form a continuing series.

At Lynemouth, the tribunal rejected several factual allegations relied on by the claimant, including that the respondent failed to order suitable PPE, failed to provide a chemical storage unit, failed to support him, or left him to work excessive hours without assistance. It found that he was given assistance from Chris Hipkiss, that facilities problems were addressed with the client, and that some complaints, such as the change to travel-time rates, were later corrected.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that the later alleged disclosures were either not proved, were not sufficiently particularised to amount to qualifying disclosures, or were not shown to have caused the alleged detriments. It also held that the grievance points did not disclose information in the way required for a protected disclosure. The claim that he was dismissed for making protected disclosures also failed.

On disability, the respondent conceded that Mr Corbett was disabled from July 2016, but the tribunal held that it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the disability until the occupational health report around 4 May 2017. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the alleged PCPs were not made out or were not shown to create a substantial disadvantage, the grievance procedure was modified in practice, mediation and a phased return were offered, and the only possible omission identified was a delayed occupational health referral. The discrimination arising, victimisation, constructive dismissal, and wrongful dismissal claims also failed: the tribunal found the sickness absence had been managed appropriately, did not accept that the claimant had been treated unfavourably because of disability or because of a protected act, and concluded that there was no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence and that he resigned rather than in response to a breach.