M s M Robison Ms M McAllister Mrs M Nelson v Represented by Mr R Lawson Solicitor and 1 other — 2018

The claimant, a scaffolder placed by the second respondent to work for the first respondent, said he suffered detriment because he made protected disclosures when asked to tag scaffolding and said he was not qualified to do so. The tribunal accepted that the relevant exchanges occurred on or around 30 March 2017 and 19 April 2017, and that the work placement ended on 19 April 2017. It also noted the respondents' position that the placement ended because of alleged falsification of hours.

The tribunal treated the disclosure issue as a borderline one under Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management v Geduld and considered the statutory requirements in ss.43B, 43C and 47B ERA 1996. It found, on the evidence, that the claimant was qualified to inspect and tag the scaffolding and that his asserted belief to the contrary was not reasonable. The tribunal also concluded that any concern he expressed was, in substance, personal to him rather than a public-interest disclosure tending to show a legal breach or danger to health and safety.

Because the tribunal held that no protected disclosure had been made, it did not need to decide whether the claimant was removed from the placement because of whistleblowing. It heard evidence about turnstile records, time sheets and text messages, but made no determinative finding that the engagement ended for the protected reason alleged. The claim was therefore dismissed.