Mr A Dunn v Altrad Services Limited — 2024

Mr A Dunn was employed by Altrad Services Limited from 9 May 2023 until his dismissal on 17 August 2023. The hearing was converted to a substantive preliminary hearing to decide a single issue: whether his TikTok video posted on 25 July 2023 contained a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part IVA of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal identified three parts of the video relied on by the claimant: an allegation that the respondent had “robbed” him of money, an allegation of a “data breach”, and an allegation said to amount to “bullying” or being put in a room with a “scary site manager”.

On the “robbing” allegation, the tribunal accepted that the video conveyed that the claimant was alleging he had been underpaid by around £1,000 in the first ten days of employment, but held that the statement lacked sufficient factual content and specificity to amount to information tending to show a legal obligation failure. It found that the claimant’s belief that the video disclosed a protected matter was not reasonable, and also that any belief that the disclosure was in the public interest was not objectively reasonable on the facts of this case.

On the “data breach” allegation, the tribunal held that the video did contain enough factual content to amount to a disclosure of information. However, it found that the claimant’s belief that the information tended to show a legal failure was not reasonable. The tribunal relied on the evidence that Altrad had explained why it required the rent agreement, had said a redacted version could be provided, and had told the claimant how the document was stored and processed. It also noted that the ICO had not told the claimant that it had identified a breach. The claimant genuinely believed there had been wrongdoing, but that belief did not satisfy s.43B ERA.

On the allegation said to amount to bullying, the tribunal found the TikTok contained only a brief reference to being taken into a room with a “scary site manager” after a wage query. It held that this was too vague and lacked the factual detail needed to amount to protected information, and in any event it did not reasonably disclose a legal failure or health and safety endangerment. As none of the three alleged disclosures qualified for protection, the automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA failed and was dismissed.