EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no: 4102866/2019 (V) Held remotely on 19, 20, and January 2021 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mr Jeffrey Hughes v Civil Nuclear Police Authority — 2018

Mr Jeffrey Hughes brought a claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging that the reason for his dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures. The respondent said the dismissal was for capability and attitude, and the tribunal noted that ordinary unfair dismissal was not available because he was a police officer. The hearing took place remotely on 19 to 22 January 2021 before Employment Judge Meiklejohn.

The tribunal found that the claimant had made protected disclosures in 2011, 2012, 2013 and January 2015, and that his AFO status was temporarily withdrawn in December 2016 after he became distressed while giving evidence in the earlier detriment claim. Occupational health assessments in 2017 led to discussion of a psychological assessment and return-to-work options, including Summergrove and Culham, but the tribunal did not treat those matters as the reason for dismissal.

The decisive step was Mr Worsell's decision in February 2018 to permanently withdraw the claimant's AFO status. The tribunal found that decision was based on the comments and criticisms contained in the earlier Detriment Judgment, including concerns about credibility, exaggeration, paranoia and the respondent's trust in the claimant as an armed officer, not on the fact that he had made protected disclosures. That permanent restriction then led to the redeployment panel and, when no suitable alternative role was identified, to the capability process and the recommendation that employment be terminated.

Applying the approach in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, the tribunal held that if there was any chain of causation, it stopped at the Detriment Judgment. The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed because it was not appropriate for him to continue as an AFO and because no suitable alternative role was available. The protected disclosures were not the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal, so the section 103A claim was dismissed.