Miss E Hortas v And Copart UK Limited Held by CVP on 1 and 2 December 2021 — 2022

The claimant presented claims alleging automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination, but the discrimination claims were withdrawn at a preliminary hearing. The tribunal therefore decided only the protected disclosure claim under s.103A ERA 1996 and the health and safety dismissal claim under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal also dealt with an application for recusal, which it rejected, citing Porter v McGill, Ansar v Lloyds TSB Bank plc, and Peter Simpler and Co Ltd v Cook.

On the facts, the tribunal preferred Mrs Brown's evidence where it conflicted with the claimant's evidence. It found that managers had concerns during February and March 2020 about the claimant's conduct, including her personal development plan, compliance with logging on to the phone system, Covid-related discussions, smoking breaks, and her behaviour when asked to work from a particular desk on 25 March 2020. The tribunal accepted that by the close of business on 25 March 2020 Mrs Brown had decided to dismiss the claimant and Miss Stovell for unacceptable conduct.

The claimant sent an email to Jane Pocock at 20:26 on 25 March 2020 raising concerns about working from home and mentioning her mother's underlying health conditions. The tribunal found that this email came after the dismissal decision had already been made, so it could not have been the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The protected disclosure claim was therefore dismissed.

On the health and safety dismissal issue, the tribunal held that Sam Bates had recently been appointed as the health and safety representative. The claimant gave no explanation why it was not reasonably practicable to raise her concerns with that representative. The claim therefore failed at the first hurdle and was dismissed. As both claims failed, no compensation or other remedy was awarded.