: A Ross G Doherty Mr C Adams v Buzz Project — 2019

The claimant worked for the Buzz Project as a musician from 1 November 2013 until 1 June 2018. The tribunal found that he made two disclosures which were protected disclosures: on 6 April 2017 he reported to Police Scotland and OSCR, and then to the respondent on 7 April 2017, that SN had breached client confidentiality and mentally abused young people; and on 4 December 2017 he reported to Police Scotland and OSCR that the respondent's end-of-year report on the OSCR website had been deliberately falsified by AN. The tribunal accepted that the claimant reasonably believed both disclosures were made in the public interest and tended to show criminal offences and failures to comply with legal obligations.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal found that by December 2017 the respondent's principal funders had withdrawn or withheld funding because of governance issues arising from the police and OSCR investigations, the Buzz Project could not continue without funds, and there was then a redundancy situation. It held that the claimant's dismissal was because of that redundancy situation, not because he had made protected disclosures. The tribunal said the chain of causation ran through the information disclosed and the resulting investigations, but the protected disclosures themselves were neither operative nor proximate by the time of dismissal and did not materially influence the decision to dismiss.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal held that the respondent had no funds, that there was no requirement for permanent musicians once the project was closing, and that at the relevant time PK was a volunteer and not an employee. On that basis the claimant was the only employee and there was no need for a redundancy selection pool. The tribunal concluded that dismissal was by reason of redundancy within s.139 ERA 1996 and that, applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the circumstances of the respondent's size and administrative resources, the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal.

The claimant's claims for holiday pay, wages, notice and redundancy payment were withdrawn after the respondent provided additional information and the claimant was satisfied he had been paid. The tribunal recorded those claims as dismissed following withdrawal. The judgment notes that the claimant's payment issues were being progressed with HMRC at that stage.