ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001684/2024 Hearing Held at Edinburgh on 14, and April 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ravio Savickis v Glenshire Brands (1) Ltd — 2025

The claimant started work for Glenshire Brands (1) Ltd on 16 February 2024 as a delivery driver at the Kirkcaldy Pizza Hut site. His contract provided for 12 hours per week, pay at £10.42 per hour, annual leave of 28 days pro rata, a holiday year running from 1 April to 31 March, and no carry forward or payment in lieu for untaken leave. He raised a grievance on 16 April 2024 about 21 hours of holiday entitlement that had been removed, and at the grievance meeting on 10 May 2024 he also referred to a form signed in his name before he started employment.

On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal held that the claimant's oral remarks at the 10 May meeting were too opaque and lacking in factual detail to amount to a protected disclosure. It did, however, accept that his written appeal correspondence of 13 May 2024 was a protected disclosure, because it alleged unauthorised use of his signature on a fire safety training form dated 10 February 2024 and was capable of showing a failure to comply with a legal obligation. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent investigated the matter, concluded that the signature had been falsified by another manager, and took steps to review and correct the fire register.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the claimant resigned on 10 May 2024, before the protected disclosure found to be protected on 13 May 2024, and the tribunal did not accept that he resigned in response to a breach of contract by the respondent. The resignation letter itself expressed thanks to the company and did not mention the alleged breaches later relied on in evidence. The tribunal also rejected the proposition that the respondent's response to the grievance or the fire-register issue amounted to a fundamental breach, and it did not accept that any failure to retrain him was because he had made a protected disclosure.

The detriment claim failed because the falsified signature occurred before the protected disclosure, so it could not itself be a detriment caused by that disclosure. The tribunal found that the respondent did acknowledge and investigate the allegation once it was raised, and that any lack of further fire training was explained by the claimant's resignation or the short duration of his employment rather than retaliation. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed: the tribunal held that the contract clearly prevented carry-forward or payment in lieu of untaken leave, that the claimant knew of the company's "use it or lose it" policy, and that the absence of reminders to book leave did not create a wages claim.