Mr J Foster v EE Limited — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant had made protected disclosures in relation to the Brentwood fraud issue, including through later repetition of that concern. It found that his BSOL-related complaints and allegations about Doxford advisers did not amount to protected disclosures, either because they were not information tending to show a relevant failure or because the claimant did not hold a reasonable belief that they did so.

On the alleged detriments, the tribunal rejected several factual allegations, including intimidation, a warning not to contact a senior manager, and managers listening in to a call. It accepted that some matters, such as being placed on a performance plan, being interviewed about an upgrade query, being investigated over a customer complaint, and being suspended, could amount to detriments, but found they were done for performance, investigatory, or workplace reasons and were not materially influenced by any protected disclosure.

For constructive dismissal, the tribunal considered the performance plan, the disciplinary process following the customer complaint, and the suspension after a colleague's complaint. It found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for those steps and had not fundamentally breached the contract of employment. The claimant was therefore not constructively dismissed, and the unfair dismissal claims, including automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A, were dismissed.