Case 3300212/2020 · Employment Tribunal
v Respondent Mr B Flanagan The London Fire Commissioner v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300212/2020
- Decision date
- 13 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs Bhatt, Mr Woodward
Parties
1 namedClaimant
v Respondent Mr B Flanagan The London Fire Commissioner
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a firefighter and FBU branch representative at West Hampstead, brought claims of detriment for trade union activity under s.146 TULRCA and whistleblowing detriment under s.47B ERA. The tribunal found that the decision communicated on 23 August 2019 to transfer him to Stanmore was a detriment: it changed his workplace, team and ability to support members at station level, and the respondent did not follow its transfer policy. Although the claimant's contract allowed transfer, the tribunal found the relocation power had to be exercised reasonably.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | s.146 TULRCA detriment claim; the tribunal held the 23 August 2019 transfer to Stanmore was imposed principally because of the claimant's trade union activity. | Upheld | — | £7,252 |
| Whistleblowing | s.47B ERA detriment claim dismissed because the tribunal found the 29 October 2019 remarks were not a qualifying disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,252
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- University College London v Brown (UKEAT/0084/19/VP)
- s.146 TULRCA
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] ICR 325
- Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] EWCA Civ 174
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) [2003] ICR 318
- Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1288
- De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd [2018] ICR 433
- 2017 Presidential Guidance
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.