Mr M Best v GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited — 2023

The claimant, a Senior Engineer Technician at the respondent's Ware site, brought claims of detriment for making protected disclosures, automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, and ordinary unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, as all engineers at the site had been placed at risk following a reduction in headcount requirements, and there was no causal link between the protected disclosures and the claimant's dismissal or treatment.

On the detriment claim, the tribunal found legitimate grounds for the matters complained of and concluded they were not influenced by the protected disclosures. On automatic unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the principal reason was redundancy and not the protected disclosures. On ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found the respondent had consulted with the claimant, used a reasonable selection pool and a fair scoring exercise carried out by Mr Morrison and Mr Smith, considered alternative employment (for which the claimant did not apply), and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.

The tribunal acknowledged the claimant appeared to be an honest witness who felt strongly about the treatment of his fiancee and the respondent's handling of related complaints, and noted that the respondent's failure to inform the claimant about certain administrative actions (such as cancelling his access pass and redirecting emails) had fuelled his mistrust. All three claims were dismissed and the remedy hearing was vacated.