Self represented For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant worked for National Highways as a Business Case Adviser/Strategic Finance Manager. The dispute concerned his view that the respondent was approving public spending without adequate business cases, and whether his criticism amounted to protected disclosures. The tribunal accepted that the claimant made a protected disclosure on 30 March 2021 to the whistleblowing helpline, but it did not accept his broader case that the respondent was acting outside its governance framework. It found that the respondent’s approach allowed investment submissions and business cases to be considered together, and that the claimant held a more rigid view requiring a complete and updated business case at every stage.

The whistleblowing detriment claim failed because the tribunal found that the main alleged acts were not proved as claimed or were not caused by the protected disclosure. It held that the Counter Fraud investigation and report, although condensed, were based on evidence and were not motivated by the disclosure. The grievance investigation and appeal were also found to be genuine and reasonable responses to the evidence before the decision-makers. One complaint about exclusion from a team-structure announcement in October 2021 was accepted factually, but the tribunal found that it happened because the claimant was temporarily reporting to a different line manager and not because he had made a protected disclosure.

The dismissal claims also failed. Applying the constructive dismissal principles in Western Excavating and Malik, the tribunal found that the two matters it regarded as potentially criticisable were not, either alone or together, serious enough to amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It further held that, even if any breach had arisen earlier, the claimant affirmed the contract by continuing to work and by pursuing grievance and appeal procedures before resigning on 25 February 2022. On that basis, the tribunal found that he had not been dismissed by the respondent.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 failed for the same reason and because the tribunal found no evidence that the protected disclosure was the principal reason for any alleged dismissal-related conduct. The ordinary unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims likewise failed because there was no dismissal. The holiday pay complaint was withdrawn at the start of the hearing and dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy hearing was needed and no monetary award was made.