UNFAIR DISMISSAL
WHISTLEBLOWING, PROTECTED DISCLOSURES
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
The employment tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the ERA’), and wrongfully dismissed, but had not been automatically unfairly dismissed, contrary to section 103A of the ERA.
On the Respondent employer’s appeal from the findings of unfair and wrongful dismissal, no error of law had been demonstrated. The Tribunal had not: (a) substituted its own view for that of the Respondent; (b) misinterpreted section 98(4) of the ERA; (c) approached the evidence in a way which amounted to a serious procedural irregularity and/or a breach of natural justice; (d) erred in its approach to, or assessment under, Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142, HL; (e) erred in its approach to and assessment of contributory fault; or (f) misinterpreted the test for wrongful dismissal.
On the Claimant’s cross-appeal from the tribunal’s dismissal of his claim for automatic unfair dismissal, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal, for it to consider the Claimant’s submissions to the effect that, whilst his conduct had provided the opportunity for dismissal, the principal reason for the latter had been his (acknowledged) protected disclosure.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0020 – 19 – 0105
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650592
