Miss E Geldard v Tactical Shooting Sports Club CIC Ltd — 2019

Miss E Geldard was employed by Tactical Shooting Sports Club CIC Ltd as an administration assistant from 14 August 2017 until her dismissal on 23 November 2017. The tribunal found that her role involved some site visits and secret-customer work, but rejected Ms Chapman’s evidence that frequent Northern trips were an established and regular feature of the job to the extent suggested by the respondent. It also found that the claimant was a good employee, that there were no concerns about her performance, and that the later documents said to record timekeeping concerns were manufactured after dismissal.

The tribunal found that there was a named safety representative and that there had been a health and safety committee, but that the claimant did not know of either. It accepted that the staff handbook required employees to raise hazards or dangers with their line manager, and held that the claimant was following that instruction when she raised concerns with Ms Chapman about long-distance travel in her own old car, including by WhatsApp on 7 and 9 November 2017 and by email on 15 November 2017. Those communications were treated as reasonable means of bringing to the employer’s attention circumstances connected with work that she reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety.

On causation, the tribunal rejected performance, timekeeping, and misconduct as the reason for dismissal. It found that the claimant had not refused to travel outright; rather, she had raised safety concerns and asked to discuss expectations. The tribunal concluded that the principal reason for dismissal was that she had brought those safety concerns to the respondent’s attention, so the dismissal was automatically unfair within the meaning of s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996. It said it was unnecessary to decide s.100(1)(d), and in any event it did not find serious and imminent danger for that provision to apply.