Mr Frame (Solicitor) For the v Mr Witte (Director of Respondent) — 2025

The claimant, employed in a sales role, brought two claims: detriment for making protected disclosures under s47B ERA 1996 and automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996. She did not have sufficient service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The matters relied on as protected disclosures concerned alleged underpayment, the claimant's mental health, and a fitnote/voice message of 14 March 2024. Employment Judge King, sitting alone at Norwich (CVP) over 11-13 November 2025, heard evidence from the claimant and from Claire Flynn and Jon Witte for the respondent.

The Tribunal found that none of the matters relied on amounted to a qualifying protected disclosure within s43B ERA 1996, as they were not disclosures of information tending to show a relevant failure and/or the claimant did not have the requisite reasonable belief in the public interest. Reporting one's own sickness was held to be a factual report of the employee's situation rather than a protected disclosure.

For completeness, the Tribunal addressed the detriment and dismissal claims. Even had a protected disclosure been made, the alleged detriments (emails and messages during sick leave, redundancy and grievance meetings, conduct of meeting in the claimant's absence) were not done on the ground of any disclosure; the steps taken followed external HR advice and the redundancy selection had in fact been identified in December 2023. The dismissal was by reason of a genuine redundancy in a sales role that had made no sales against an unfavourable financial position. Both claims were accordingly dismissed.