Case 4106160/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106160/2022 (V) Held at Aberdeen on December 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr Mark McMillan
After a 999 incident on 8 October 2021, the respondent investigated a reported delay in attendance. The claimant was interviewed on 8 November 2021, the recorded emergency call was played to him, and he went off sick. The tribunal found that he later made an alleged protected disclosure on 24 May 2022 about the playing of the call, including concerns said to relate to data protection, health and safety, and his own mental health. A return-to-work report on 24 May 2022 concluded that he was not fit to return to full duties, the investigation was then completed, a disciplinary hearing was invited for July 2022, and the claimant resigned on 30 May 2022, withdrew that resignation on 2 June 2022, and resigned again on 12 July 2022.
This was an interlocutory judgment on strike out and deposit orders only. Applying rule 37 and rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and the approach in Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, the tribunal said it had to be slow to strike out claims where central facts were disputed. It found that the constructive dismissal claim could not be struck out, but that it had little reasonable prospects. The tribunal said the pleadings did not clearly set out the alleged assurances from the line manager after the 30 May resignation or the detailed criticisms of the investigation report, but it could not wholly rule out a cumulative breach of trust and confidence based on the playing of the recorded call, the return-to-work issues, the grievances, and the whistleblowing concerns.
The whistleblowing detriment allegation about not allowing the claimant to return to work was struck out. The tribunal relied on the contemporaneous return-to-work assessment by Mike Adams, which said the claimant was not fit to return to full duties, and held that nothing in the material linked that decision to the protected disclosure. The separate whistleblowing detriment allegation about being summoned to a disciplinary hearing was allowed to proceed only subject to a £1,000 deposit order. The tribunal considered a causal link unlikely because the investigation predated the disclosure and also led to action against the claimant's crewmate, but it could not say that allegation had no reasonable prospects. No substantive compensation award was made in this judgment.
This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal treated this as the constructive dismissal claim, although the interlocutory order refers to it as 'unfair dismissal'. Strike out was refused, but a deposit order of £1,000 was made because the claim had little reasonable prospects rather than no reasonable prospects. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment allegation that the claimant was summoned to a disciplinary hearing because of his protected disclosure. Strike out was refused, but the tribunal made a deposit order of £1,000 before the allegation could proceed. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment allegation that the respondent did not allow the claimant to return to work on 24 May 2022 was struck out for no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
The 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.
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.