LJ Grime and M McAllister Mr J McNeil v Arnold Clark — 2023

The claimant's earlier disability discrimination and victimisation allegations were withdrawn at a preliminary hearing, leaving protected-disclosure, detriment and constructive-dismissal issues for determination. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, HR witnesses and Mr Green, and found the respondent's witnesses clear and cogent. It accepted that the first Ask the Boss email of 20 October 2020 did contain information about car sharing, social distancing and office arrangements, but held that the claimant's concerns were personal to his own position and his son's health, not made in the public interest. The second Ask the Boss email of 23 November 2020, and the later discussions with Ms Henderson and Ms Corrigan, were also found not to be protected disclosures on the tribunal's analysis.

The whistleblowing detriment claim failed because the tribunal found the alleged treatment was either not a detriment or was not shown to be on the ground of any protected disclosure. The move to another team within the transport department was not a transfer to another department, was made because the claimant and a colleague should not continue in the same team after their altercation, and was not adverse in any material sense because the claimant's duties, hours and job title stayed the same and his take-home pay slightly increased. The alleged refusal of holidays and of time off for appointments was not established, and the Safety Support conversation was private office discussion between colleagues rather than treatment by the employer.

The constructive-dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaints about the March 2019 accident report, the September 2019 mediation, Mr Green's conduct, the team move and the holiday arrangements as breaches of contract or of trust and confidence. It found Mr Green had engaged with the claimant professionally, had not refused time off, and had tried to accommodate him where possible. The alleged 'final straw' about the Safety Support discussion was characterised as innocuous office gossip that had been addressed internally and was not capable of amounting to a final straw. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant resigned, but not in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal; it also rejected the alternative section 103A ERA 1996 case because the disclosures were not the principal reason for dismissal.