Mr N Henry v Chubb Fire Limited — 2022

The Claimant was a long-serving fire alarm service engineer at the Respondent and raised concerns over time about contractors' work at Queen Elizabeth School and the integrity of the fire alarm system. The Tribunal found that some of his communications amounted to qualifying protected disclosures: the disclosures on 15 November 2018, 16 November 2018, 29 November 2018, 2 August 2019, and 18 November 2019 were protected, while the October 2017, 18 October 2018, and 20 February 2019 matters were not. It held that the Claimant had a reasonable belief in the concerns he raised and that fire safety issues at a school were in the public interest.

The protected disclosure detriment claim failed because the Tribunal found no sufficient causal connection between the protected disclosures and the disciplinary process. It found that the process was driven by the 4 July 2019 fire at the School and the Respondent's concerns about the Claimant's inspection records, rather than by the disclosures themselves. The protected disclosure dismissal claim also failed: although the Respondent was unreasonable in its understanding of the underlying certificate evidence, the Tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct related to the Respondent's view of the Claimant's paperwork, not the making of protected disclosures.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The Respondent established conduct as a potentially fair reason, but the Tribunal found serious procedural unfairness: the specific allegation relied on for dismissal was not put to the Claimant during the disciplinary process, he was not provided with sufficient documentation to answer the case, there was no proper investigation, and the appeal did not cure those defects. The Tribunal concluded that, had a fair process been followed, it was unlikely the Claimant would have been dismissed at all, so no Polkey reduction was made.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The Tribunal did not accept that the Claimant's record-keeping shortcomings amounted to a fundamental breach justifying summary dismissal, and it held that he was entitled to 12 weeks' notice. It found that the Claimant contributed 20% to his dismissal because of shortcomings in his inspection records, which would reduce any basic and compensatory award at remedy. A remedy hearing was listed for 7 March 2022, and this judgment did not quantify the final monetary award.