Mr T Jones v Represented by: Mr J Jones - Lay Representative Glasgow City Council and 4 others — 2023

The claim form also included complaints of age and sexual orientation discrimination, but this hearing was confined to the claimant's application for interim relief on the automatic unfair dismissal claim. Applying sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and the approach in Bin Saqr Al Qasimi, the tribunal asked whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at a full hearing under section 103A, and stressed that it was making only a preliminary assessment, not definitive findings of fact.

The claimant relied on three alleged protected disclosures about the 'pupil A incident': two oral statements to members of the first respondent's Psychological Services department on 28 October 2022 and 4 November 2022, and an email to the headteacher on 8 November 2022. The tribunal held that the first two disclosures were not described in enough detail to show the necessary information, were not shown to have been made to the employer or another permitted person, and did not establish the required reasonable belief under section 43B or the public interest test. As to the third disclosure, the email referred to the UNCRC and the Equality Act 2010 but said only that the claimant suspected there may have been a breach; the tribunal held that this was not likely to show a reasonable belief in a legal breach or in endangerment to health or safety, particularly because the claimant had not been present in the room where the incident occurred.

The claimant's constructive dismissal case depended on an alleged breach of mutual trust and confidence, with the 16 March 2023 meeting with the second respondent relied on as a last straw. The tribunal held that, on the papers then available, the options offered at that meeting were not obviously untenable: mediation was offered as an alternative to a formal complaint, and temporary redeployment on return from sickness absence did not on its face require immediate transfer. The tribunal also noted substantial factual disputes about the meeting and the wider course of conduct, and found that any link between the alleged breach and the protected disclosures appeared tenuous. Interim relief by way of a continuation order was therefore refused.