Case 4107552/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ives v Penumbra — 2020
- Case reference
- 4107552/2019
- Decision date
- 18 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ives
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ives brought claims said to arise from protected disclosures he made about the running of the Rosemount Terrace service and about the handling of his post. The respondent accepted that the email of 6 April 2018 was capable of amounting to a protected disclosure and investigated it through Emma Wilson. The tribunal accepted that the respondent took the disclosure seriously and that the investigation and subsequent decision by Jane Cumming were fair and supported by the report.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal noted the claimant did not have two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal, but considered the dismissal issue in light of the accepted protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996. It found he did not have cause to resign on 16 April 2019 and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | This is the detriment claim arising from the protected disclosures made on 6 April 2018 and later about the opening of mail. The tribunal found no actionable detriment and no causal link between the disclosures and the respondent's actions. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.