Case 3309972/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Mapembe v Slough Borough Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 3309972/2021
- Decision date
- 24 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Mapembe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted the claimant's application for interim relief and ordered continuation of his contract from the termination date, 26 May 2021, until determination or settlement of the complaint. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a net monthly sum of GBP 2,320.25, described as normal pay due to him, and to make pension contributions of GBP 219.72 from 27 May 2021 until final determination or settlement.
The claimant alleged that his dismissal was automatically unfair because the reason or principal reason was protected qualifying disclosures. The Tribunal was satisfied, on the material before it, that the claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that he made protected disclosures concerning alleged breaches of legal obligations, including matters relating to construction, data protection and IT policy.
The respondent did not attend the interim relief hearing. On the claimant's account, the Tribunal found that he had given a coherent and compelling narrative linking the disclosures to dismissal on the purported ground of redundancy, and was satisfied at the interim stage that he had a pretty good chance of showing that the reason for dismissal was that he made a protected disclosure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment granted an application for interim relief in a complaint alleging automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA. It was not a final determination of the substantive claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 128(1)(a)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562
- Taplin v CC Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068
- Dandpat v The University of Bath UKEAT/0408/09/LA
- Hancock v Ter-Berg and another UKEAT/0138/19
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.