EAT WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
1. The Claimant was a ‘mobile worker’ to whom the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005 (‘the RTR’) applied. The Tribunal did not consider the RTR; and if it had considered the RTR ought to have found that the Claimant was correct in asserting that if the Respondent required him to work a ‘period of availability’ it was not entitled to require him to stay in the depot: definitions of ‘period of availability’, ‘working time’ and ‘workstation’ in reg. 2 applied.
2. The Tribunal ought to have considered whether the Claimant, when he raised this issue with his manager, made a protected disclosure: see section 43C(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Moreover, although disclosure to VOSA was not protected by virtue of section 43C, it might potentially be protected by virtue of section 43G.
3. The Tribunal did not make adequate findings to address the Claimant’s case under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
4. The Tribunal’s findings concerning the principal reason for dismissal were vitiated by its misunderstanding of the RTR and its failure to make adequate findings to deal with the Claimant’s case under section 100(1)(c).
5. Section 101A and section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 do not extend to contraventions of or rights conferred by the RTR; no process of interpretation can add the RTR to section 101A(2) and section 45A(5).
Appeal allowed. Case remitted for re-hearing.
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0085 – 10 – 1605
Links:
Employment
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439842
