Miss May, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2024

Mr Yiannis Sapanidis worked as a General Assistant in the YMCA Milton Keynes kitchen and cafe from 14 September 2020 until his dismissal on 4 February 2022. He alleged protected disclosures about a range of kitchen and food-safety matters, including the extractor fan, fryer position, PPE, changing facilities, management certification, food storage, pest control, cleaning products and the use of food past date. The tribunal found that most of these matters were not shown to have been raised in a way that amounted to protected disclosures, and that there was little or no written evidence of complaints to senior management. The only written complaint identified was an email to Lisa Harrison about spilt milk in a fridge and on the floor, which was acknowledged and actioned the same day.

The tribunal accepted that the Mars Bar tray-bake issue had been raised with Mrs Rhind and that, on the facts found, it was a health and safety matter and in the public interest. It also noted, however, that if the relevant date was only a 'best before' date, that would be a quality issue rather than a breach of legal obligation or health and safety. On the detriment claim, the tribunal found that the comments said to amount to detriments, including being called a 'snitch', did not amount to a detriment within s.47B ERA 1996. It held that the remarks were expressions of annoyance and not treatment on the ground of protected disclosures.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that Mrs Rhind and Lucinda Mubarak decided to terminate the claimant's employment because of his disruptive manner, continuing questioning and undermining of management, argumentative and aggressive approach, refusal to attend funded anger management, and refusal to undertake barista training. It found those were the reasons in the minds of the decision-makers, as reflected in the dismissal letter and appeal outcome, and that they had nothing to do with any alleged protected disclosures. The appeal was heard by Simon Green, who upheld the dismissal. Both the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 and the detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 were dismissed.