In person For the v Respondent — 2018

Mr Pammen started work on 28 August 2017 after three weeks' induction and a contract providing for 37.5 hours a week in a role where long days and nights were to be expected. On 29 and 30 August he raised concerns about 12-hour shifts, patient G jumping a fence, patient E's violence, being left alone with patients, breaks and the level of risk in the support worker role. The tribunal accepted that some of those communications were disclosures of information, but held that many of the matters were allegations rather than information and, in any event, that he did not have the reasonable belief required by s.43B ERA 1996.

After the 30 August meeting with Vivienne Moore, the claimant handed back his badge and left site. The respondent understood him to have resigned, then when he later said he had not resigned it invited him to a probationary review and told him to attend shifts on 9 and 10 September. He did not attend. At the probationary review on 13 September, the respondent treated the absence as unauthorised absence and terminated employment for failed probation, paying one week in lieu of notice.

On appeal, Andrew Gordon upheld the claimant's concerns that ward-level induction could be improved and said the issue would be investigated, but he did not accept that the environment was dangerous in the way alleged or that the dismissal was linked to the disclosures. The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to detriment and was not dismissed because of protected disclosures; the materially operative reason was his failure to attend work when required. It also found that the health and safety provisions in ss.44 and 100 ERA 1996 were not made out because he did not reasonably believe he faced serious and imminent danger and was not removing himself from such danger.