Case 4100210/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Member E McCall Tribunal Member F Parr Mr P Mullery v Avanti Environmental Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100210/2019
- Decision date
- 11 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
- Venue
- Inverness
- Panel members
- E McCall, F Parr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member E McCall Tribunal Member F Parr Mr P Mullery
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mullery worked for Avanti Environmental Group Limited as Commercial Manager for Highland Waste Services from 18 June 2012. The tribunal accepted three protected disclosures: in July 2017 he told Mike Kerins that a trailer loaded with scrap had not been weighed in; in March 2018 he reported to NB that consultant Allan Mackay had removed 4 tipping skips and 4 IBC trollies; and on 26 September 2018 he told MQ that an employee of a client had asked for payment into a personal account and that AM may have been aware of the arrangement. It rejected the suggested disclosures to AM in late summer 2017 and April 2018 because AM was not the employer for section 43C purposes.
On the detriment claim, the tribunal found no act or deliberate failure to act on the ground that Mr Mullery had made protected disclosures. It accepted that some events occurred, including the July 2017 argument with AM, but found AM was unaware that the call to Mike Kerins had been made and later apologised. It also found that the March 2018 disclosure led to written instruction to Allan Mackay not to remove materials without permission, and that the September 2018 disclosure led to a fact-finding investigation by MQ. Other alleged detriments were not proved, were not detriments, or were not linked to the protected disclosures.
Mr Mullery resigned on 2 October 2018 after being told that NB would investigate the concerns he had raised with MQ. The tribunal held that appointing NB, who was not implicated and was the divisional director responsible for HWS, was not a repudiatory breach and was not capable of being a final straw when viewed cumulatively. Applying the authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded there was no constructive unfair dismissal and no automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A. His later grievance was investigated and not upheld, and no remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | s.47B ERA detriment claim. The tribunal accepted three protected disclosures, but found no act or deliberate failure to act by the respondent was on the ground of those disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | s.103A ERA automatic unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held the reason or principal reason for termination was not the protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim under s.95(1)(c) ERA. The tribunal held that appointing NB to investigate was not a repudiatory breach and not a final straw. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- NHS Manchester v Fecitt
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd (t/a Chemistree) v Gahir
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
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.