In person. For the v Respondent — 2022

This was a judgment on the claimant’s application for interim relief heard on 5 January 2022. The tribunal considered the application under ss.128 and 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with the claimant proceeding in person and the respondent represented by counsel. The judge recorded that the claimant had not initially understood the nature of the application and that the tribunal did not hear evidence, but instead considered the pleaded cases and a small number of documents.

The claimant’s case was that he had been dismissed after raising concerns about an unsafe van, including issues with heating, rear brakes and overloading, and after telling a colleague about faults with the vehicle. The tribunal held it was highly unlikely that the social media post relied on by the claimant would amount to a protected disclosure, because it did not appear to be a disclosure of information and did not fall within the relevant statutory categories. It also found that a request for a vehicle to be looked at for repairs was unlikely to satisfy s.43B ERA 1996 as a qualifying disclosure. Reports from MTM Fleet Maintenance dated 9 November 2021 and 22 November 2021 said the brakes were operative and legal and the heating was working as expected, which made it difficult for the claimant to show a reasonable belief that the respondent was breaching a legal obligation.

The tribunal also identified two further difficulties for the claimant. First, the respondent produced an agreement signed by the claimant stating that he was self-employed and could work elsewhere, and the claimant accepted he had previously worked through his own company; the tribunal therefore said employee status would need to be established at the final hearing. Second, the contemporaneous notes of the final meeting suggested that the claimant walked out saying he did not want to work there, rather than being dismissed. Applying the interim relief test, the tribunal concluded that it was not likely that a final tribunal would find that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was that the claimant had made a protected disclosure. It therefore refused interim relief and listed a one-day open preliminary hearing to determine employment status.