In person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant made only one qualifying disclosure, in or about the first week of August 2014, when he said that workers had been treated as self-employed and should have been accounted for through PAYE. In deciding whether the alleged disclosures were qualifying disclosures, it referred to s.43B(1)(a) and (b) ERA 1996 and cited Cavendish Munro v Geduld, Eiger Securities v Korshunova, and Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed. It rejected the remaining alleged disclosures about the accounts, VAT, policies, the café, conflicts of interest, and Ms X as either generalised advice or not made out on the evidence.

The s.47B detriment claim failed because the tribunal found no detriment caused by the protected disclosure. It found that the respondent was often responsive to the claimant's comments and that issues such as hours, TOIL, pay, and support arrangements were negotiated over time rather than imposed in retaliation. It also rejected the case that he was blocked from the Board because of whistleblowing, finding that limits on direct access were due to line management structure rather than any protected disclosure. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 failed because the qualifying disclosure was not the sole or principal reason for dismissal.

On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the reason for dismissal was four admitted acts of gross misconduct: withholding an HMRC warning letter, changing and withholding his computer password, facilitating Mr Salim's lone working in the office without authority, and withholding reference information about a newly appointed Facilities Manager. Although it had reservations about aspects of the disciplinary and appeal process, it concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. A reference in the papers to arrears of time off in lieu was not pursued as part of the definitive issues and was said to fail in the absence of evidence or submission.