Members: Mr P O’Hagan Mr A Ross Mr Alastair Logan v BAE Systems Surface Ships Ltd — 2018

The claimant was employed by BAE Systems Surface Ships Ltd from 23 March 2015 as a Senior Engineer-Maturity & Process. At a preliminary hearing on 9 December 2016, his section 1 ERA, holiday pay and working-time claims were dismissed, and a section 4 ERA claim was later struck out after he did not comply with a £500 deposit order. The remaining claims went to a liability hearing only and were brought as blacklisting-related automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, and disability discrimination claims under sections 13, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the claimant and his managers had a difficult working relationship, including disagreement about workload, objectives and meetings, and that the respondent moved through informal meetings, suspension, investigation, disciplinary hearing, grievance and appeal stages. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the disciplinary and grievance processes were handled by different managers and HR staff, and that those deciding dismissal were not involved in the grievance process. The tribunal also found the respondent's witnesses credible and reliable.

The blacklisting claim failed because the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was on a prohibited list or that any decision-maker used such a list when recruiting or dismissing him. It rejected the suggestion that references to the claimant's 'reputation' or to his CV showed blacklisting, finding those comments were made in the context of his wish to move internally between functions and of views about his CV. The tribunal concluded that dismissal was not related to a prohibited list.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal considered the claimant's asserted disclosures in the December 2015 meeting and in the 25 April, 8 May and 15 June 2016 emails. It held that most of the material was opinion or allegation rather than qualifying disclosure, but accepted that the health and safety point in the 25 April email about a fire drill and evacuation arrangements was a protected disclosure under section 43B ERA 1996. Even so, it found that disclosure was not the principal reason for dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996; the dismissal decision was made because of conduct findings, namely failure to follow reasonable instructions and unsatisfactory conduct.

The disability claims also failed. The tribunal held that references to stress, shaky hands and the word 'paranoia' did not amount to perception of disability, and it relied on the occupational health report which said there was no psychological illness or impairment. It found that the harassment allegations were based on witnesses' descriptions of behaviour rather than unwanted conduct related to disability, and that the victimisation claim failed because the respondent was not shown to know of the Vodafone proceedings or to have acted because of any protected act. No monetary award was made.