Mr L Laniyan v Adam Cex Limited — 2021

The tribunal found that Mr L Laniyan made protected disclosures about the condition of the Ilford staff area. It accepted that, between January and October 2019, he repeatedly raised concerns that the toilet was broken and leaking, there was a rat carcass in the kitchen, there were trip hazards, and the kitchen lacked light and hot water. The tribunal found that he reasonably believed these matters posed a health and safety risk to himself and colleagues, that they showed a breach of the respondent’s duty to provide a safe workplace, and that the disclosures were in the public interest.

On the detriment claim, the tribunal accepted that dismissal without a disciplinary procedure was a detriment, but it found that the protected disclosures were not a material cause of that decision. It held that the respondent’s failure to follow a procedure was explained by the claimant’s less than two years’ service and by the contractual position that the disciplinary procedure would not be followed before termination in such cases. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that he was unfairly targeted, finding instead that contemporaneous concerns were raised with him about lateness, stock handling, efficiency and till discrepancies, as they were with other employees.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on or around 19 October 2019 because of poor performance and lack of improvement, particularly increasing till discrepancies, issues around stock and the area by his till, and concerns about attitude. It accepted evidence that Mr Ahmed and Mr Parkes did not discuss the staff-area complaints when deciding to dismiss him, and concluded that the protected disclosures were not the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal noted that the dismissal would have been unfair if he had two years’ service, but the whistleblowing dismissal claim failed and no award was made.