Mr Simon Duffy v Nottingham CityCare Partnership — 2024

Mr Duffy had been employed by Nottingham CityCare Partnership from 9 November 2015 until his dismissal on 23 May 2024 as a Team Leader. His claim form, presented on 29 May 2024, was treated as an unfair dismissal claim in which he contended both ordinary unfair dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996 and automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 on the basis that he had made protected disclosures. The application before the tribunal was therefore for interim relief under ss.128-129 ERA 1996.

The respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct, namely that the claimant had sent a colleague inappropriate WhatsApp messages which it said amounted to sexual harassment. The claimant denied that this was the real reason and said the allegations were brought because he had raised concerns through the Speaking Up route. The tribunal reviewed the WhatsApp messages, the disciplinary investigation materials, the transcript of the disciplinary hearing on 9 May 2024 and the reconvened hearing on 23 May 2024, and the outcome letter sent on 29 May 2024. It also noted that an appeal had been lodged on 6 June 2024 and remained pending.

Applying the interim relief test, the tribunal was not satisfied that the s.103A claim was likely to succeed. It found there was no evidence from the claimant that his colleague had fabricated the WhatsApp messages. It also recorded that, on the face of the documents, neither the colleague nor Deborah Hall appeared to have been aware of any whistleblowing concerns until after the allegation had been raised and the investigation had already started. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown a sufficient prospect of establishing that the principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosure, so the application for interim relief was dismissed.