L Doherty Members: Mr. H P Boyd Mr. K McKenna v Represented by: Mr C Edward - Advocate Instructed by: Mr G A Ghee - Solicitor Mr. Michael Anthony Eivers — 2018

The claimant brought a whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 arising from a series of disclosures and alleged detriments between 2010 and 2014. The tribunal recorded that the respondents accepted several disclosures as protected disclosures, including disclosures in June, August and October 2010, early 2011, and 15 March 2011, concerning the claimant's allegation that Central Scotland Police had falsely claimed he was responsible for the death of Dean Geary.

The tribunal did not accept that the claimant made the alleged protected disclosure on 30 April 2010. It also held that the later complaints that the Ministry of Defence Police had failed to investigate criminal allegations against Central Scotland Police were not qualifying disclosures under section 43B(1)(b), because the claimant, as an experienced police officer, could not reasonably believe that the respondents had a legal obligation to investigate an alleged crime by another police force.

On the alleged detriments, the tribunal found that the Civil Service Injury Benefit application was supported by Chief Superintendent Walker and that any delay was administrative; that the grievance handling was affected by the respondents' view that the matter was sub judice; that pay at pension rate in May and June 2011 was initially withheld on HR advice but later backdated; and that the ill-health dismissal process was driven by the claimant's prolonged absence rather than the disclosures. The tribunal accepted that the letter confirming ill-health retirement was not forwarded in May 2014, but found Inspector Hart had not received it and that the omission was not connected to protected disclosures.

The tribunal held that the last acts relied on as being within time did not amount to detriments on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures. As a result, the complaint was out of time under section 48(3) ERA 1996 and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it. No monetary award was made.