Case 4100102/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Member P McColl Tribunal Member A Shanahan Mr M Watson v Scotbeef Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100102/2020
- Decision date
- 4 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Panel members
- P McColl, A Shanahan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member P McColl Tribunal Member A Shanahan Mr M Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Malcolm Watson, brought a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 based on emails sent on 21 August 2019 about an energy audit prepared by Mr Karol Wojcik for Scotbeef's Plan A and ESOS work. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had raised concerns to Mrs Caldwell shortly before dismissal, but it found Mr Wojcik's evidence credible that his use of the phrase "made up" meant created rather than fabricated, and it rejected the claimant's account that he had been told the report was falsified or that Mrs Caldwell and Mr Galloway had instructed falsification.
On that evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant had not proved a qualifying disclosure within s.43B ERA 1996. It found that he did not have a reasonable belief that the information tended to show wrongdoing, and it did not accept the accuracy of his notes or his timing evidence about the meeting on 21 August 2019. The Tribunal noted shortcomings in the respondent's documentation and process, but concluded that those did not alter the factual finding that the alleged falsification was not reasonably believed and therefore did not amount to a protected disclosure.
For completeness, the Tribunal said that if a protected disclosure had been made, the principal reason for dismissal would still have been Mrs Caldwell's view that the claimant had not delivered material cost savings in the role. It accepted her evidence, supported by Mr McKellar and Mr Kirkbright and by contemporaneous emails, that the role was focused on cost reduction and that there had been no appreciable improvement in East Kilbride's figures during the claimant's employment. The claim was dismissed in full and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s.103A ERA 1996. The Tribunal held there was no qualifying disclosure because the claimant did not prove a reasonable belief that the energy-audit information showed wrongdoing, and it rejected the alleged instruction by Mrs Caldwell and Mr Galloway to falsify the report. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Kilraine v Wandsworth London Borough Council
- Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.