Mr D Wearn v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2022

The claimant worked for the respondent from 2006 and raised concerns in November and December 2018 about money being moved from one charity collection box to another. The respondent had conceded at a preliminary stage that there had been a protected disclosure, but the Tribunal revisited that issue after hearing the evidence and found the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that a crime, including fraud, had been committed. It found the information disclosed was that money donated to charity had been moved from one charity box to another and was still given to charity.

The section 47B detriment claim failed because the pleaded detriments were out of time and the claimant had not given evidence explaining why it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. The Tribunal also found that, even if the claim had been in time and there had been a protected disclosure, the matters relied on were not detriments caused by a disclosure. It accepted contemporaneous documents and respondent witness evidence on the meetings, the CCTV issue, the transfer to Mansfield, and the absence review process.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the Tribunal found that none of the matters relied on, individually or together, amounted to conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. It found the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to discuss the claimant's unauthorised CCTV viewing, accepted Ms Colley's evidence about the claimant's limited duties and training at Mansfield, and accepted Ms Howard's evidence that she took the claimant's concerns seriously and tried to follow up. The section 103A claim failed because any dismissal was not because of a public interest disclosure, and the section 38 Employment Act 2002 claim failed because there was no successful substantive claim on which it could depend.