Case 4105373/2023 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105373/20235 Held at Aberdeen on September 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr M Radcliffe v Represented by Ms S Shiels,15 Solicitor CHC Scotia Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4105373/2023
- Decision date
- 29 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105373/20235 Held at Aberdeen on September 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr M Radcliffe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief, alleging that his dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the reason or principal reason was protected qualifying disclosures. The Tribunal noted that the respondent did not appear at the interim relief hearing, although the proceedings had been intimated to it.
The Tribunal considered the claimant's account and documents about repeated disclosures concerning alleged health and safety issues from excessive vibration in Sikorsky S-92 helicopters, access to occupational health assessment, and vibration data. It stated that the claimant had met the interim relief test and that the claim was likely to succeed, while noting that detailed formulation of the protected disclosures would happen once pleadings had crystallised.
The Tribunal granted interim relief, ordered continuation of the claimant's contract as an Aircraft Commander and Captain from the date of termination until termination or settlement of the complaint, and ordered the respondent to pay salary and pension payments to which the claimant had been entitled before dismissal until final determination or settlement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal granted an application for interim relief under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 in relation to an alleged automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The final merits of the complaint had not been determined. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 128(1)(a)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562
- Taplin v CC Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.