ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No 4102633/2016 held at Edinburgh on and November 2016, 23, 24, 25, 26, and April and May 2018, 10, 11, 12, and December 2018, 18, 19, 20, and March 2019 and and April and 1, and May 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Members: Ms M Fisher Ms G Powell Mr Christopher Purnell v Represented by Mr D McFadzean, Solicitor The Edinburgh Mela Limited — 2019

The claimant was the respondent's Director from November 2011. The tribunal traced a dispute about the respondent's governance, the rotation of board members, and the accuracy of its register of members. It found that the claimant had repeatedly raised governance concerns internally, including at board meetings in December 2015 and January 2016, and that he later disclosed to the board the Balfour & Manson advice that the respondent was not complying with its Articles of Association on rotation. The tribunal held that these were disclosures of information made in the public interest, on a reasonable belief that the respondent was failing to comply with legal obligations.

The tribunal found that the breakdown in the relationship came to a head after the meeting with funders on 1 March 2016, where the claimant raised the governance and rotation issues and the funders sought an action plan, timeline, and skills audit. It held that Mr Khan's email of 11 March 2016, which required the claimant to justify in writing what he had said at the funders' meeting, was disingenuous and breached the implied duty of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned on 14 March 2016 in response, so he was constructively dismissed. The tribunal also recorded that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996 succeeded, but no separate award was made on that basis.

On the protected disclosure dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claimant's disclosures were the reason for the dismissal and therefore the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A ERA 1996. It awarded a basic award of £2,874 and a compensatory award of £49,155.35, including gross-up, giving a dismissal award of £52,029.35. The tribunal did not reduce the award for lack of good faith.

On the detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the claimant had been subjected to detriment by allegations of financial irregularities, associated press coverage, and a police investigation. It rejected the respondent's case that he had stolen money or used the respondent's finances improperly, and found that the allegations had damaged his reputation and career prospects and caused injury to feelings. It awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings, using the middle Vento band as then applicable. The total monetary outcome of the case was £67,029.35.