Mr K Haji v SGS Sentinel Group Limited and 1 other — 2022

The claimant worked as a relief security officer on a zero-hours contract from 19 March 2020. On 10 August 2020 he was sent to a school site where there was expected electrical disruption. He said that when he arrived he found no electricity, toilet, kitchen or washing facilities and that he was left outside the building for much of the night. The tribunal accepted that he spoke and texted Mr El-Shoubaky that evening about those conditions, including that they were against health and safety, and it found that these communications disclosed information tending to show unsafe and unhygienic conditions. It held that the disclosures were made in the public interest and that they amounted to protected public interest disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996.

The tribunal rejected the detriment allegations. It found that any failure to assess the site before 10 August was not done because of a protected disclosure, because that occurred after the alleged failure. It also found that Mr El-Shoubaky did not call the claimant back because he had passed the matter to Mr Ali and the Helpdesk, and that the first respondent did not expect the claimant to work without basic facilities once it learned of the problem. The tribunal held that the claimant was paid for the full shift on 10 August and paid SSP for the period covered by his sick notes, so his sick pay was not withheld. It also found that the later offers of work were made when the respondent was not aware of any current sick certificate, and that an offer of work was not itself a detriment. The grievance was investigated, although the outcome was not what the claimant wanted, and the tribunal held that the investigation was adequate. The complaint against Mr El-Shoubaky also failed.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal noted that the claimant had started work in March 2020 and therefore did not have two years' service when he resigned on 5 October 2020. It found that his resignation did not refer to any contractual breach, that he had remained employed after the 10 August incident, and that there had been no fundamental breach of contract by either respondent. The tribunal concluded that he had resigned, not been dismissed, and that his resignation in October 2020 was not caused by any protected disclosure, breach of contract, or breach of duty of care. The claim was dismissed in full.