ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001212/2026 Interim Relief Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on June 2026 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mrs W Smolec v TGC Facilities Management Limited — 2026

Mrs W Smolec alleged that TGC Facilities Management Limited automatically unfairly dismissed her because she had made protected disclosures concerning workplace pension arrangements and contracted staffing hours at client sites. The judgment determined only her application for interim relief and did not determine the merits of the underlying claim.

The Tribunal applied the section 129(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 threshold, under which the claimant had to show a "pretty good chance of success", meaning a likelihood significantly higher than mere probability. It also applied the likely-to-succeed threshold to each element of the section 103A claim, including whether qualifying disclosures had been made and whether they were the sole or principal reason for dismissal.

The Tribunal could not find on the information available that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that her communications amounted to protected disclosures under section 43B. The precise nature, timing, content and recipients of the alleged disclosures were disputed, as was whether the claimant had disclosed information or made allegations. The Tribunal found that these issues required oral evidence and cross-examination at the full hearing.

The reason for dismissal and the respondent's knowledge were also disputed. The respondent relied on evidence that the dismissal concerned the claimant's conduct following staff complaints and said that David Moncur, who was unaware of the alleged disclosures, made the decision. The claimant initially identified Andrew Alleway as the decision-maker and later argued that he would have been consulted as a Board member. The Tribunal considered that change of position weakened her assertion that the decision-maker knew of the alleged disclosures. It also noted that the disciplinary hearing had already taken place before the alleged final disclosure on 15 May 2026.

The Tribunal did not conclude that conduct was definitively the sole or principal reason for dismissal. It found that the disputed evidence prevented the claimant from meeting the high interim-relief threshold and refused the application. No monetary award was recorded in this judgment.