Mr I Stringer v British Broadcasting Corporation — 2024

The tribunal recorded that the claimant made an admitted protected disclosure on 20 July 2021 about an alleged breach of Covid guidelines. It found that the dismissing officer and appeal officer did not know of that protected disclosure and dismissed or upheld dismissal because they considered the claimant had committed gross misconduct by accepting valuable vehicles without declaring them under the respondent's policies. The tribunal rejected the argument that this was a Jhuti-type case, finding that the decision-makers had clear evidence and were not deceived into adopting an invented reason.

For ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that conduct was the reason for dismissal and was a potentially fair reason. Applying the misconduct dismissal principles, it found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out an investigation within the range of reasonable investigations. It accepted that there had been a long delay before the claimant was told the specific allegations, but found that this did not make the process unfair; it also found no truly parallel comparators and no breach of the ACAS Code rendering the dismissal procedurally unfair.

On whistleblowing detriment, the tribunal found no detriment in relation to promotion or development opportunities because there was no guaranteed promotion or acting-up arrangement and no link to the protected disclosure. It accepted that being subject to a disciplinary investigation was a detriment, and noted concern about the line manager's involvement in the email that prompted the investigation, but found the investigation arose from concerns initially raised by others and from the senior editor's view that investigation was required. It also found the named comparators were in materially different circumstances and that there was no causal link between any alleged different treatment and the protected disclosure.