Mr J Stubbs v The Chief Constable Of North Yorkshire Police — 2022

The tribunal found that the claimant made protected disclosures on 18 October, 31 October and 14 November 2019 about access to the Niche RMS and ViSOR systems without formal training. It held that he believed, reasonably, that the information tended to show a likely failure to comply with data protection obligations and that he also held a reasonable belief that the disclosures were in the public interest, applying the approach in Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed.

The tribunal rejected the case that the dismissal was caused by those disclosures. It found that the restructuring of the training team was already underway before the first disclosure, accepted that there was a redundancy situation under s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996, and held that the reason for dismissal was redundancy arising from that restructuring. It found no evidence that the respondent reacted badly to the disclosures or acted with an agenda to remove the claimant, and dismissed the claims under ss.103A and 105 ERA 1996.

On ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the claimant and colleagues were warned about the proposed changes, that consultation in October and November 2019 was meaningful, that the later revision was based on Ms Consett’s review, and that the respondent was entitled to limit the risk pool to the IT trainers. It also found that the claimant chose not to appeal and later requested an earlier termination date in order to avoid the disciplinary interview arising from his social media post.

The tribunal recorded that, had it not found redundancy to be a fair reason for dismissal, it would have regarded the social media conduct as sufficiently serious to warrant summary dismissal for gross misconduct. It therefore dismissed all claims and made no award.