Case 3312959/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. N Charlette v The Original Bowling Company — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312959/2020
- Decision date
- 14 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Price
- Panel members
- Ms Betts, Ms Baggs
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. N Charlette
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Charlette worked as a centre manager from 15 November 2017 and was dismissed summarily on 17 September 2020 after a disciplinary process concerning WhatsApp messages he sent to A, a younger employee for whom he had management responsibility. The tribunal found the messages were sent by the claimant, were one-sided, contained sexual references and emotional pressure, and were inappropriate in light of his managerial role and A's age and vulnerability. It held that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in gross misconduct, carried out a sufficient investigation, and acted within the range of reasonable responses in dismissing him.
The tribunal accepted that on 18 December 2019 the claimant made disclosures to Sian Oliver and Andy Goddard about the absence of hot water and gas at the Bracknell centre and the resulting health and safety concerns. It found that he reasonably believed the information tended to show a failure to comply with legal obligations and that health and safety could be endangered, and that he reasonably believed raising the matter was in the public interest. However, it found that those disclosures were not the operative or principal reason for dismissal; the dismissal was caused by the messages sent to A, so the protected disclosure dismissal claim failed.
The holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had already taken all of his annual leave in the relevant leave year and nothing was outstanding at dismissal. The section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999 claim also failed because the tribunal found he had not made an advance request to be accompanied to the disciplinary hearing. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct arising from WhatsApp messages sent to a junior employee, and that the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal accepted that the claimant made protected disclosures on 18 December 2019 about lack of hot water and gas and related health and safety concerns, but found those disclosures were not the principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had taken all of his annual leave in the relevant leave year, so no holiday pay remained outstanding on dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 failed because the tribunal found the claimant did not make an advance request to be accompanied to the disciplinary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed
- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
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.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
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.