Case 4104216/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Member W Canning Tribunal Member J Copland Mr John Brown v , Solicitor Sips Eco Panel Systems Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104216/2020
- Decision date
- 6 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
- Panel members
- W Canning, J Copland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member W Canning Tribunal Member J Copland Mr John Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were production operatives who returned from furlough on 4 May 2020 after the respondent wrote setting out COVID-19 precautions for the factory. Each sent an email on 5 May 2020 saying that PPE, distancing and workstation cleaning were not being properly enforced, and each was dismissed by letter on 7 May 2020 after an internal investigation said the respondent had found repeated breaches of its rules.
The tribunal held that the emails did contain sufficient information to amount to disclosures for the purposes of section 43B ERA 1996, but it found that neither claimant had a reasonable belief, in the public interest, that the information tended to show a relevant failure. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the factory return was planned, that PPE, hand sanitiser and cleaning products had been put in place, and that the premises were large enough for distancing. It also found that the claimants did not raise concerns on 4 May 2020 and that their failure to do so was more consistent with a wish to remain on furlough, including childcare concerns, than with a genuine fear that the COVID measures were not being enforced.
On that basis the tribunal found there was no protected disclosure and therefore no automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. Because each claimant lacked the necessary qualifying period of employment, the tribunal said they had no other basis of claim. It added that if it had found a protected disclosure, it appeared there would have been retaliation, but that was not the finding reached.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | First claimant John Brown: claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found his 5 May 2020 email did not amount to a protected disclosure made in the public interest on a reasonable belief that it tended to show a relevant failure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Second claimant Brian Hoggins: claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 failed for the same reason; the tribunal held his 5 May 2020 email was not a protected disclosure on the facts found. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamad
- Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
- Maund v Penwyth District Council
- Kuzel v Roache Products Limited
- Boldin v Land Securities Trillium (Media Services) Ltd
- Kraus v Penna plc
- Darnton v University of Surrey
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.