Member N Elliot Tribunal Member D McFarlane Mr E Ivers v Littleinch Ltd — 2019

The claimant worked for Littleinch Ltd as a maintenance technician and health and safety adviser. On 30 August 2018, after being asked to switch on boiler 1 and seeing an 'At Risk. Do Not Use' sticker, he contacted the HSE gas safety advice line and emailed Mr Watson saying that turning the boiler back on would breach the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018. The tribunal found that the email conveyed information, that the claimant reasonably believed it tended to show a failure to comply with a legal obligation and a risk to health and safety, that it was made in the public interest, and that it was sent to his employer so it was a protected disclosure within sections 43A, 43B and 43C ERA 1996.

The tribunal also found that the claimant was invited to a supervision meeting later that day, and that during that meeting he said he was unhappy in his job, was looking for another job and was doing the bare minimum; the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that he also behaved in a way Ms Denham and Ms Pitman interpreted as hostile or aggressive. The tribunal accepted that Ms Denham and Ms Pitman reported those concerns to Mr Watson after the meeting, and that Mr Watson then decided to dismiss the claimant on 31 August 2018, with the dismissal communicated on 3 September 2018.

Applying the burden of proof for a section 103A claim where the claimant had less than two years' service, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown that making the protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It considered the timing, the sequence of emails, the supervision meeting, the dismissal letter, and the appeal process, but concluded that the real reason for dismissal was the attitude and behaviour displayed at the supervision meeting. The tribunal therefore dismissed the whistleblowing claim and did not go on to determine remedy.