Members: Robert McPherson Andrew Ross Mr David Buchanan v Represented by:- Mr Tony McGrade – Solicitor Student Loans Company Limited — 2018

At the outset, the tribunal refused the respondents' oral application to amend the ET3 to add a reasonable steps defence, because the application came too late and lacked meaningful specification. On the whistleblowing detriment claim, the tribunal held that none of the three communications relied on by the claimant was a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996. It also held that the first three alleged detriments were time-barred under s.48(3) ERA 1996, and in any event found that the claimant was not subjected to the alleged detriments: there had been no delegated power removed over Leslie I'Anson's removal, the move to Bothwell Street was voluntary rather than imposed, Craig Docherty's 16 May 2016 email was his own message rather than one made by or for the claimant, the later complaint investigation delay was not a detriment, and the refusal to reinstate full pay was consistent with the claimant's contractual sick pay entitlement.

On the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 29 June 2017 with immediate effect and was not dismissed expressly or constructively within s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It rejected the case that the handling of pay or the wider treatment amounted to a repudiatory breach or a breach of trust and confidence. The tribunal found no binding promise to pay more than the claimant had already received under his sick pay entitlement, and it considered that he had continued working until September 2016 and had therefore not established that resignation was the only option.

On the s.103A ERA 1996 automatic unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed, expressly or constructively, because he had made a protected disclosure. It found no qualifying disclosure and no causal link between any disclosure and the pay decision or resignation. All complaints were dismissed in their entirety and the tribunal recorded that the claimant was not entitled to any compensation.