, Ms P McColl Mr W Muir Mr M Quinn v D E Product Labels Limited — 2021

The Tribunal found that the Claimant made a protected disclosure on 23 March 2020 when he told DE that two employees had underlying health conditions, including asthma, in the context of the business staying open during the first Covid-19 lockdown. It held that his more general concerns about health and safety were not themselves a disclosure of information for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation, but that the disclosure about the employees' underlying health conditions did amount to a qualifying and protected disclosure because it tended to show that health and safety might be endangered and the Claimant reasonably believed it was in the public interest.

The s47B detriment claim failed on causation. The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence that the Claimant had been isolated or that communication from DE changed after 23 March 2020. It did find that being asked to hand back his keys and not return to the workplace after the 3 June 2020 meeting was capable of amounting to a detriment, but it accepted the HRSS evidence that this was standard practice after a protected conversation and found that the people involved had no knowledge of the protected disclosure when that step was taken.

The dismissal claims also failed. For the s103A claim, the Tribunal accepted DE's evidence that the production manager role was removed as part of a cost-saving restructure and that the duties were redistributed, so the reason for dismissal was redundancy and not the protected disclosure. For the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation, that use of a pool of one was reasonable, and that the consultation process, appeal arrangement, and consideration of the vacant office support role were within the band of reasonable responses, even though the Tribunal noted that some aspects would have been better handled.