Mr J Gallant v The Governing Body of Rushmore Primary School — 2019

Mr Gallant was employed as a site manager at Rushmore Primary School from 29 July 2002. The tribunal accepted that he was disabled by reason of a brain injury sustained in 2010 and that the respondent knew of that disability. It found that the dismissal on 21 May 2018 was for conduct: the claimant had repeatedly sent external emails, ignored management directions, refused to work with named contractors, and the disciplinary and appeal panels upheld dismissal because trust and confidence had broken down.

On the whistleblowing complaints, the tribunal accepted that the claimant made protected disclosures on 15 November 2016 about a dangerous boundary wall and in February 2017 about works in the kitchen. It found that the January 2017 fire-panel point was not protected because the claimant’s belief that it showed danger and was in the public interest was not reasonable, and that the repeated references to contractors as rogue builders were allegations rather than disclosures of information. Several of the detriment allegations were dismissed as out of time under section 48 ERA 1996, and the tribunal also found that some alleged detriments were ordinary management action or lacked any causal link to protected disclosures.

The tribunal found no automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 because the protected disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It held that the decision to dismiss was based on the respondent’s genuine belief in gross misconduct, supported by the investigation report, documentary emails, and the evidence at the disciplinary hearing. The claimant’s argument that the dismissal was connected to whistleblowing was inconsistent with his appeal position, where he accepted gross misconduct but challenged sanction.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal rejected the section 15 complaint because the adverse treatment relied on was not because of something arising in consequence of disability. It found that the delayed installation of the fire gate was due to budgetary constraints, that the findings of misconduct were based on the claimant’s conduct rather than any impaired perception, and that the grievance and disciplinary chairs did take account of the disability and mitigating points raised. The tribunal also found that the claimant was able to participate fully in the grievance, disciplinary and appeal processes, with trade union representation, breaks, and an offered adjournment, so there was no substantial disadvantage requiring further adjustments.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the whistleblowing, disability discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal and ordinary unfair dismissal complaints in full. No monetary award was made.