In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal heard claims arising from the claimant's employment as Site Manager/Caretaker at Islamia Girls School, including whistleblowing detriments, automatic unfair dismissal, victimisation, holiday pay, overtime, expenses, loss of promotion, failure to provide written particulars, and a Working Time Regulations rest-break complaint. The respondent's case was that the claimant was dismissed for poor performance during probation. The tribunal also found that the claimant's credibility was materially affected by inconsistent evidence on overtime and expenses and by his failure to disclose his DBS certificate until late in his employment.

On the public interest disclosure claims, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had made some protected disclosures of a health and safety nature, but it did not find that the alleged detriments were caused by those disclosures. It held that the alleged withdrawal of a Senior Caretaker role was not shown to have been a firm offer, that the summer works finance process required supporting evidence, and that the claimant had not proved he spent his own funds as alleged. It also rejected the allegations of unlawful deductions, humiliating or demeaning treatment, and denial of training as causally linked to protected disclosures.

On the dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's poor performance during his probationary period, including concerns about efficiency, attention to detail, quality and accuracy of work, and communication. It accepted the evidence that the decision-maker, Ms Khaladi, was unaware of the protected disclosures when she terminated employment. The automatic unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved he made a protected act by alleging to the respondent that it was discriminating against Mr Taruvinga on grounds of religion or belief. The tribunal found no discussions of that nature with the respondent and noted that even the claimant's apology letter to Mr Taruvinga made no reference to religious discrimination. The alleged detriments in the victimisation claim therefore could not be causally linked to any protected act.

The financial claims also failed. The overtime claim was not proved because the tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation for his spreadsheet figures and found no reliable clocking-in evidence or corroboration from the signing-in book. The expenses claim failed for the same reason, with the tribunal rejecting the handwritten invoices and alleged loan evidence. The holiday pay claim was not supported by documentary evidence or dates, and the loss-of-promotion claim failed because no firm offer of promotion was proved.

The tribunal further held that there was no basis for compensation for failure to provide a written statement of initial employment particulars because that claim could only succeed as a piggyback claim and the substantive claims had failed. The Working Time Regulations rest-break complaint had been withdrawn by the claimant. No monetary award was made and the provisional remedy hearing was vacated.