Slack v Represented by: Ms A Bowman, Solicitor D R Collin & Son Ltd — 2025

The claimant brought a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosure. At the start of the hearing he withdrew reliance on disclosures to prescribed persons, and the tribunal considered two alleged disclosures to the respondent: on 12 April 2024 to Paul Virtue about training and shellfish covering, and on 15 April 2024 to David Rosie after the claimant's workplace injury.

The tribunal found that on 12 April the claimant told Mr Virtue that he had not received training about always covering shellfish, but did not mention safe systems of work, risk assessments, a general lack of training, or wet fish being kept overnight without refrigeration. It held that this statement did not, in the claimant's reasonable belief, tend to show endangerment to health or safety and was not made in the public interest; the claimant's concern was that he could not be held accountable without training. By contrast, on 15 April he told Mr Rosie that he had slipped putting his foot on the bumper when entering the van and hit his head, and the tribunal found that this did amount to information reasonably believed to show that his health or safety had been endangered and to be in the public interest because of reporting and wider safety considerations.

On dismissal, the tribunal accepted that in mid-April the managing director reviewed management accounts and considered savings were required because of a seasonal downturn in work. It found that the respondent concluded it could manage with one less driver, selected the claimant because he was the shortest-serving driver and did not do international deliveries, and dismissed two production operatives at the same time for redundancy-related reasons. Although the claimant's sick absence had some bearing because the respondent saw it could manage without him, the tribunal found there was no reasonable basis to infer that either the 12 April exchange or the 15 April accident report was the principal reason for dismissal. The automatic unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.