Mr S. Harding (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024

This was an application for interim relief under s.128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal heard submissions only, with no oral evidence, and said it would not make firm findings of fact at this stage. It accepted that it was arguable that some of the issues raised by the Claimant could amount to protected disclosures, but it did not need to analyse that point further because the decisive question was whether it was likely that a Tribunal would find those disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that a future Tribunal was likely to find that protected disclosures were the principal reason for the Claimant's dismissal. It noted there was no indication in the evidence that the Claimant was treated negatively because he had raised concerns, and that some of the issues he raised were followed up by managers rather than ignored. It also referred to other matters showing the Respondent did not generally treat him unfavourably, including resolution of the annual leave issue and an investigation into the Christmas card incident.

The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence pointed to conduct as the reason for dismissal. It referred to a disciplinary process based on multiple complaints, including the instruction to attend meetings, the tone and content of emails, complaints from colleagues including Ms M, and a nurse's complaint about an incident in December 2023. The Tribunal said the material before it did not support a real prospect of proving that the dismissal was due to protected disclosures rather than conduct. The Respondent had said it was not willing to reinstate or re-engage the Claimant.