Mr Justin Cordes v Redranger UK Limited — 2021

The claimant was employed within the respondent's group from August 2014 and moved into the respondent's UK role in July 2018. After an incident on 29 August 2019 with Mr Graeme Jeram about moving stock at Dunfermline, the claimant emailed Mr Winfield on 2 September 2019 complaining that Mr Jeram's behaviour and alleged comment were intimidating and had left him concerned for safety. Mr Winfield sought statements from those present, criticised both parties' conduct, and on 10 September 2019 terminated the claimant's employment on the basis of a mutual breakdown in trust and confidence, saying he did not believe the alleged threat and that it was not realistic for the claimant to work under Mr Jeram.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal held that the 2 September 2019 email did not amount to a protected disclosure. It found that, even if the alleged comment had been made, the claimant's belief that there had been a legal or health and safety breach was not objectively reasonable, because the comment was isolated and did not amount to a realistic threat to others. It also found that the complaint was a personal disagreement between the claimant and Mr Jeram rather than a disclosure made in the public interest. In any event, the tribunal found that dismissal followed because Mr Winfield genuinely believed the claimant could no longer work for Mr Jeram, not because he had made the complaint.

The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason under section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996, namely the perceived breakdown in the working relationship. However, it held that the respondent did not act reasonably for the purposes of section 98(4) ERA 1996. The dismissal came only a week after the complaint, the process was found to be unduly rushed, and there was no proper discussion or consultation before the decision was taken. The claimant's reply suggested he was still willing to explore ways to make the relationship work, but the discussion was brought to an end prematurely. Applying Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd, the tribunal found that the claimant would probably have been made redundant shortly afterwards in any event, and that he would have remained employed for two further weeks while consultation took place.

Compensation was therefore limited to a basic award of £2,625, two further weeks' net pay of £2,395.72, and four weeks' net pay representing the unpaid balance of notice, £4,791.44. The tribunal said no reduction should be made for contributory conduct or failure to mitigate. The total award was £9,812.16.