Mr A Hine v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2023

The claimant was employed as an HGV distribution driver and complained about the respondent using his personal smartphone to send tyre safety messages. The respondent accepted four disclosures as protected disclosures, and the tribunal found that a further Protector Line complaint on 1 September 2020 was also a protected disclosure because the claimant reasonably believed it tended to show a breach of data protection obligations and was made in the public interest.

The whistleblowing detriment complaints failed. The tribunal found that dealing with the data protection complaint separately from the disciplinary process was not a detriment and was not because of the protected disclosures. It also found that the disciplinary decision-makers did take the claimant's data protection concerns and screenshots into account, and that although the later data protection outcome letter did not address all issues, this was not materially influenced by the protected disclosures.

The automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A failed because the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct on 3 August 2020. However, the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct and had carried out a reasonable investigation into the incident, but the procedure was outside the range of reasonable responses because the claimant was not given copies of witness statements, was not shown CCTV relied on by the dismissing manager, and received an inaccurate summary of witness evidence at the investigatory stage.

The breach of contract complaint concerned delayed payment of banked hours. The tribunal found it had no power to hear the claim because the matter was not outstanding at termination, the respondent having paid the outstanding sums in March and April 2019.