EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Protected disclosure
The claimant, who had less than one year’s continuous employment fell out with his fellow directors and equal shareholders. He was removed as a director. His solicitors wrote on his behalf stating that they had given advice to their client as a shareholder, director and employee. The Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the letter contained a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 43. As can be seen from Section 43L(3) the ERA recognises a distinction between an allegation and information. It set out a statement of position in the context of known difficulties between the parties. The letter did not contain a protected disclosure within the meaning of the ERA. Accordingly the Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the Claimant could bring a claim for unfair dismissal although he had less than one year’s qualifying employment and that his dismissal because of the letter was automatically unfair. The decision of the Employment Tribunal was set aside.
 UKEAT 0195 – 09 – 0608,  ICR 325,  IRLR 38
Distinguished – Parkins v Sodexho Ltd EAT 22-Jun-2001
The applicant had been employed for a short period. He was dismissed, and he claimed that this was because he had made a protected disclosure in complaining about the respondent’s health and safety practices. He had applied for interim relief. The . .
Cited – Freeman v Ultra Green Group Ltd EAT 9-Aug-2011
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons
The Tribunal erred in law in holding that words spoken at a meeting by the Claimant did not amount . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377539