Mr M Shovon v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2022

The Tribunal found that the Claimant made one protected disclosure on 14 May 2019, when he gave information to Mr Thomas about chilled goods being brought onto the shop floor contrary to the 30-minute rule. It found that this was information which the Claimant reasonably believed tended to show a food safety risk affecting customers and was in the public interest. The Tribunal did not find that earlier oral complaints to Baba had been shown to amount to protected disclosures.

The whistleblowing detriment claim failed. The Tribunal found that the June 2019 written warning and September 2019 final written warning were imposed because of the Claimant's absence levels under the attendance policy, not because of the protected disclosure. It also found that the protected disclosure played no part whatsoever in the dismissal decision, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim by reason of protected disclosure was dismissed.

For ordinary unfair dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was unsatisfactory attendance in breach of the attendance policy, amounting to some other substantial reason. However, it found that the dismissing and appeal managers applied the policy mechanistically, did not properly consider the work-related stress elements of the relevant absences, the possible connection between absences, Occupational Health input, lesser sanctions, or the individual circumstances. The dismissal was therefore outside the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal found no contributory fault, but held that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed within a further four months, so compensation was capped accordingly.