Mr D Glavey v E.ON Energy Solutions Limited — 2020

Mr Glavey had been employed by E.ON Energy Solutions Limited since 2000 as a cable jointer. In March 2017 he raised concerns about the correct cable and joint kits for work on the NPG network. The tribunal preferred his account that Mr Pickering and Mr Roe reacted by swearing and throwing equipment, and it found that the grievance process partially upheld those complaints. The tribunal held that this conduct was capable of breaching trust and confidence, but that the claimant accepted apology letters and continued in employment, so that breach was later affirmed.

The tribunal found that the March 2017 occupational health report recommended a stress risk assessment, monthly 1:1s, and related support, but those recommendations were not implemented in a timely way. It also found that the September 2017 standby request was handled unsympathetically and contrary to the Field Sales Agreement, and that later matters such as the March 2018 overtime change and the MEWP instruction were managed in a way that was inconsistent or insensitive in the surrounding circumstances. The January 2018 overtime amendment claim failed because the additional hour was not properly payable and, in any event, the claim was out of time.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the October 2017 disclosure to Mr Shaw and the February 2018 disclosure to Mr Shaw and Ms Brown about tachograph compliance were protected disclosures. It accepted that Mr Glavey genuinely and reasonably believed that using 18-tonne HGVs to collect stock from another depot and then drive to site might fall outside the relevant exemptions, and that he believed the issue was in the public interest. By contrast, the external disclosure to DVSA was not protected under section 43H ERA because the tribunal did not regard the case as exceptionally serious and held that it was not reasonable to go outside the business at that stage.

The tribunal found that the later investigation led by Mr Ellis was unreasonably prolonged and broadened to historic allegations in breach of the Respondent's own disciplinary policy. It found that the investigation, the graffiti and worsening workplace tension, the lack of adequate support, the overtime inconsistency, and the MEWP instruction cumulatively destroyed trust and confidence, and that Mr Glavey resigned in response to that breach. The constructive unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded. The automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the relevant treatment was on the ground of the protected disclosures, and remedy was left to a later hearing.