Mr B Griffiths v Andrew Hughes Utility Services Limited — 2020

The tribunal heard competing accounts of an alleged meeting on 3 May 2019 at which Mr B Griffiths said he reported slurry being dumped under a hedgerow and in a field near Temple Newsam and showed photographs to Mr Hughes and Mr Atkin. Mr Hughes denied that the meeting took place and said he had already been aware of the spill and had arranged the clean-up. The tribunal noted there were no contemporaneous notes or communications from either side and that the evidence on the alleged disclosure was sharply divided.

By majority, the tribunal found that Mr Griffiths had not proved that he made a protected disclosure. It considered his evidence in chief to be vague and lacking detail, including uncertainty about where the meeting took place, what time it occurred, and how the photographs were shown. The majority also relied on the absence of corroborating documents, the absence of any follow-up by email or text, and the fact that Mr Griffiths did not mention the alleged protected disclosure when later confronted with disciplinary action. On that basis, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed. A minority member, Mr Morgan, would have found the disclosure had been made and that the dismissal claim succeeded.

The tribunal unanimously found that Mr Griffiths was denied the right to be accompanied at disciplinary meetings. It found that he had clearly requested representation for meetings on 9 May 2019 and 13 May 2019, that he was denied that opportunity, and that the meetings were disciplinary in nature. The judgment states that the respondent must pay two weeks' pay in compensation under sections 10 and 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, but the exact sum was left for the parties to agree.