Case 3200630/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Zarembok v Bp plc and 5 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200630/2019
- Decision date
- 20 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs M Legg, Mr L Bowman
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr J Zarembok
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant did raise concerns in 2017 about the use of local agents in Nigeria and the level of commissions being discussed, and it accepted that those concerns were genuine and in part connected with compliance and bribery risk. However, it held that the 2017 communications did not amount to protected disclosures because, at the time, the Claimant believed there was only a possibility, not a probability, of wrongdoing. It also held that when he later raised grievances, he did not at the time hold a genuine belief that doing so was in the public interest, even though the tribunal considered that some of his complaints could reasonably have been seen that way.
On the detriments claims, the tribunal dismissed the section 47B whistleblowing complaints. It found that many of the complained-of steps had either not occurred as alleged or were taken for reasons separate from the disclosures, including ordinary management, the management of change process, and the parties' without prejudice negotiations. On the parental leave claim, the tribunal found one detriment on the merits: Dan Wise's decision to ask whether the Claimant wished to apply for good leaver status was materially influenced by the fact that he had taken parental leave. But that complaint was held to be out of time under section 48(3) ERA 1996, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to grant a remedy.
The tribunal also rejected the automatic unfair dismissal case. It found that by the time of dismissal the employment relationship had broken down because the Claimant no longer had trust in the relevant managers and they no longer had trust in him, and that there was no realistic way to reintegrate him into the crude team. Niamh Hegarty's stated reasons for dismissal were accepted as genuine, namely the breakdown in trust and the fact that he had been without a substantive role for a prolonged period. The dismissal was held to be for some other substantial reason and fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996, with the appeal process and grievance handling not showing that the protected disclosures materially influenced the outcome.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the Claimant raised genuine concerns about the use of Nigerian agents and later grievances, but held that the 2017 conversations did not amount to qualifying disclosures because he believed only a possibility, not a probability, of wrongdoing. It also found that later grievances were not made with the necessary public-interest belief, and that the section 47B detriment complaints were not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Parental leave | The tribunal found one detriment on the merits: Dan Wise's decision to ask the Claimant about good leaver status was materially influenced by the fact that he had taken parental leave. However, it held that the complaint was out of time under section 48(3) ERA 1996 and therefore gave no remedy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 103A ERA 1996. It found the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence and the inability to reintegrate the Claimant, and held the dismissal fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth disclosure of information test
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed public interest test
- Kraus v Penna plc likely means probable
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester material influence test
- Jesudason v Alder Hey detriment test
- Deer v University of Oxford grievance detriment principle
- Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd time limits
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Perkin v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust
- Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse fact-finding on memory
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.