In person For the v Respondent — 2019

This was an application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996 following the claimant's dismissal on 7 August 2019. Mr Geoffrey Seers said he had made protected disclosures to Metroline's Chief Executive, Mr Sean O'Shea, in March and April 2019 about the inconsistent application of disciplinary procedures and the impact that such inconsistency could have on employees' health and safety. The respondent's case, reflected in the witness evidence before the tribunal, was that the dismissal decision was based on a breakdown in the working relationship and not on any protected disclosure.

Applying section 129(1) ERA 1996, Employment Judge Tuck referred to His Highness Seikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al Qasimi v Ms T Robinson on the meaning of "likely", together with section 43B ERA 1996 and Chesterton Global Limited & Another v Nurmohamed on public interest disclosure, and Eigar Securities LLP v Korshunova on causation. The judge accepted that the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving that he made an oral disclosure on 16 April 2019 and that, in his reasonable belief, it tended to show that health and safety could be adversely affected by inconsistent disciplinary procedures.

The tribunal also accepted that the disclosure was not made in the claimant's personal interest and that he had a genuine and reasonable belief that the information was in the public interest. However, on the material before it at this preliminary stage, the tribunal was not in a position to say that the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving that the disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The judge said the claimant might be able to show that the disclosure was one factor in the decision, but that was not enough for interim relief.

Interim relief was therefore not granted and the issue was left to be tested at a final hearing. No monetary award was made at this stage.