Mr S George v Lloyds pharmacy — 2020

The tribunal considered a complaint of detriment for having made protected disclosures under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It proceeded on the basis that the claimant had made the disclosures identified in the case management summary, but did not decide whether the respondent could withdraw its earlier apparent concession on that point because it was unnecessary to the outcome.

The tribunal found that concerns about the claimant had already arisen before any protected disclosure was made. A manager at the Wallingford branch had complained about his behaviour and work in March 2018, and the tribunal accepted Karen Bailey's evidence that further problems arose at Carterton on 12 April 2018. The tribunal found that any negative view formed of the claimant by that stage could not have been influenced by protected disclosures because, on the claimant's case, his first disclosure was made the following day.

As to the detriments relied on, the tribunal found that the cancellation of shifts in Carterton, the decision to bar the claimant from the Oxford cluster, and the later decision not to offer any further bookings were explained by concerns about his behaviour and performance rather than by his disclosures about near miss recording. Applying the causation test, the tribunal held that the disclosures did not materially influence the respondent's treatment of the claimant, so the claim was dismissed.