Mr D Marcinkiewicz v Young & Co’s Brewery plc — 2026

Mr Marcinkiewicz worked as Head Chef at the White Hart in Chippenham. His employment transferred from Marstons to Young & Co.’s Brewery PLC in July 2023. Following sickness absence, he returned to work on 18 January 2024, raised a grievance the next day and resigned on 19 February after receiving the grievance outcome. The tribunal dismissed his complaints of whistleblowing detriment, automatically unfair constructive dismissal and ordinary constructive dismissal.

The tribunal rejected four of the six alleged protected disclosures. The email of 31 August 2023 disclosed information about staffing and stress, but the claimant had not held a reasonable belief that it was made in the public interest or identified a relevant statutory failing. The email of 3 September concerned operational support and did not disclose information or raise safety matters. The tribunal did not find that the claimant made the alleged statements about health and safety at the meetings on 12 September 2023 and 26 January 2024.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant made two protected disclosures on 18 January 2024, orally to General Manager Kevin Donald and by email to Operations Manager Alan Trapp. These concerned kitchen cleanliness, incorrectly frozen food and raw meat stored with cooked food. The claimant reasonably believed that the disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show breaches of legal obligations and risks to customers’ health. His concern about being blamed did not prevent the email from qualifying for protection.

The detriment complaint failed on causation. Decisions to reduce the claimant’s hours, leave stock duties temporarily with the Sous Chef and move the claimant’s accommodation preceded the protected disclosures. The disciplinary investigation also predated them. It concerned reports that staff had reduced burger portions on the claimant’s instructions, rather than his sickness absence. The investigation had been postponed until his return to work. The tribunal therefore found no detrimental treatment because of the protected disclosures.

The automatically unfair constructive dismissal complaint also failed. Mr Trapp’s response that the kitchen issues should be resolved by the claimant and Mr Donald did not blame the claimant or breach mutual trust and confidence. The tribunal found that resolving those issues fell within their responsibilities. It also found that the grievance was investigated promptly, that its outcome was balanced and supported by reasons and evidence, and that the failure to uphold every complaint did not amount to a repudiatory breach.

For ordinary constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the hours reduction was permitted by the claimant’s contract. Different contractual arrangements explained why the salaried Sous Chef retained his hours. Temporarily retaining stock duties with the Sous Chef was intended to ease the claimant’s return after four months’ sickness absence, although this could have been explained more clearly. Fire safety requirements provided reasonable and proper cause for the accommodation move; the contract did not entitle the claimant to a particular room. There was also reasonable and proper cause to investigate the burger portion reports. Staffing concerns had been discussed, some extra hours agreed and holiday accrual resolved. Applying the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, the tribunal found no constructive dismissal. No monetary remedy was awarded.