Claimant v S W Enviro Ltd — 2025

Mr D Buchan worked for S W Enviro Ltd as a Ventilation Engineer from around 16 January 2023 until his dismissal on 27 November 2024. The preliminary hearing concerned whether passages in his letter of 20 April 2024 amounted to a protected disclosure under section 43B ERA 1996 or amounted to bringing health and safety concerns to the employer's attention for the purposes of section 100(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal noted that the respondent had no health and safety representative or committee, so direct reporting to the Managing Director would have been reasonable if there had been a qualifying concern.

The tribunal examined the paragraph headed "Understanding RAMS" and found that the claimant was referring to the need for training and certification, including working at height training, as part of his case for promotion. It held that the wording did not indicate that he or his colleagues' health and safety had been, or were likely to be, put at risk by the absence of that training. The passage was treated as a suggestion for improvement and as evidence of his awareness of safety issues, rather than as the communication of a present or likely safety danger.

The tribunal reached the same conclusion in relation to the paragraph headed "Taking interest and ownership of tasks and projects". It found that the claimant was expressing disappointment that the respondent had not supported further training towards gas and refrigeration work and was explaining how he could develop the business if given training and support. The tribunal held that this did not say that anyone's health and safety was at risk, and did not amount to a disclosure of information tending to show a relevant failure under section 43B or to the bringing of harmful or potentially harmful circumstances to the employer's attention under section 100(1)(c).

As a result, the tribunal dismissed the detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 and the automatically unfair dismissal claims under sections 100(1)(c) and 103A ERA 1996. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining unlawful deduction from wages claim was not determined at this hearing and was to be listed for a one-day hearing before an Employment Judge sitting alone in Edinburgh.