Mr Samuel Martins, Law Consultant For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Bryan worked for Took Us A Long Time Limited as a Supervisor, later Assistant Manager and Acting General Manager. The tribunal first considered whether he had made protected disclosures in November 2018. It held that his 20 November 2018 text to Mr Sousa was no more than an FYI and did not reflect a belief that he was acting in the public interest or disclosing wrongdoing. By 22 November 2018, however, after further discussion and a handwritten statement, he had raised a protected health and safety concern about staff sleeping in the Chichester restaurant.

The tribunal found that Mr Capdevila's comments and pressure on 22 November 2018, and the two Formal Job Chats issued on 8 February 2019, were detriments on the ground of the protected disclosure. Those complaints were nevertheless dismissed because they were presented outside the three-month time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time. The tribunal also rejected the remaining whistleblowing detriment allegations, including the alleged hostile working environment and later complaint-handling points, where it was not satisfied that the primary facts were proved or that the matters were causally linked to the protected disclosure.

On the grievance and transfer, the tribunal found shortcomings in the way Mr Field handled the process, but it concluded that the Claimant did not resign in response to that handling. It found that the grievance outcome and transfer to the Cambridgeshire / Midlands area were agreed, that the Claimant later accepted the transfer, and that he did not appeal. It rejected the suggestion that he was set up to fail at Cambridge, finding Ms Grace-Mae supportive and that the Claimant was given further opportunities and support.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed by the Respondent. It held that any earlier breaches of trust and confidence arising in late 2018 and early 2019 had been waived when he accepted the March 2019 transfer. It also found that the extension of his probation in August/September 2019 was agreed and supportive, not a breach, and that the 22 October 2019 disciplinary invitation over the burn incident was an appropriate step and not destructive of the employment relationship.

The tribunal accepted that the Claimant failed to report the bartender's burn and that the Respondent's concern about that incident justified the disciplinary process. It found that the later resignation letter relied on earlier events, but that did not alter the conclusion that there was no constructive dismissal, no wrongful dismissal, and no automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A. No monetary award was made.