In person v Respondent — 2021

This was a hearing on the claimant’s application for interim relief in support of a complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal assumed for the purpose of the application, without deciding it, that the claimant could establish protected disclosures. It applied sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and noted the guidance in Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz on the meaning of “likely”.

The respondent’s evidence from Ms Stephanie Parente was that the dismissal was for two reasons: a breakdown in the claimant’s relationship with her line manager, and the claimant’s failure to comply with an instruction not to correspond about concerns with senior managers, the Global Head of HR and the UK CEO, but instead to use the grievance and whistleblowing channels. The tribunal identified material supporting that account, including the instructions and reminders at pages 145, 147, 192, 196 and 229 of the respondent’s bundle and the wording of the dismissal letter at page 299.

The tribunal also identified points supporting the claimant, including that she was performing the role of Risk Officer, that she said the relationship with her line manager had not broken down, and that she had said on 29 December 2020 that she intended to contact the regulator and then did so. However, on the limited material before it and without oral evidence or cross-examination, the tribunal could not resolve those disputes. It concluded that there was not a significantly better than 51% chance that the full tribunal would find that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures.

The application for interim relief was therefore refused. The tribunal stated that it was not making findings of fact on the underlying dismissal issue, which would be for the full hearing.