Mr J Rose v All Answers Limited — 2019

Mr Rose was employed by All Answers Limited as a Junior Web Designer from 19 March 2018. He passed probation early and received a £3,000 annual salary increase. He later alleged that he raised data protection concerns and was dismissed because of those disclosures. The tribunal noted that the Respondent accepted there were some issues with the data it held, but the central question was whether Mr Rose had actually made protected disclosures to the Respondent.

The tribunal found that at the 18 October 2018 meeting with Mr McLellan, Mr Rose made no reference to GDPR breaches and handed over no documents. It accepted the Respondent's evidence that Mr McLellan later telephoned Mr Dennehy because he was concerned Mr Rose was going to complain about him, not because any protected disclosure had been made. The tribunal also found that Mr Dennehy decided to terminate employment after speaking to Mr Jones and Mr McLellan, with immediate effect and payment in lieu of one week's notice, but the meeting process was not handled well and no formal disciplinary procedure was followed.

In assessing credibility, the tribunal relied on inconsistencies in Mr Rose's account, including the absence of any mention of document handover in his original claim and appeal materials, and the change in his evidence about what was said at the 19 October meeting. It applied section 103A ERA 1996 and section 43B ERA 1996, and also referred to Smith v Hayle Town Council and Ross v Eddie Stobart Limited on the burden of proof where the claimant lacked two years' service. The tribunal concluded that Mr Rose had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he made the alleged protected disclosures or that dismissal was for that reason.

The claim of automatically unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded.