UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons
The Appellant contended that he had been dismissed by reason of the fact that he made a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal held, at a Preliminary Hearing, that the disclosure made was not capable of amounting to a protected disclosure as it did not amount to information tending to show the breach of a legal obligation (here, a funding agreement between the Respondent and another public body) and the Appellant could have no reasonable belief that there had been such a breach as he had not seen the funding agreement.
The appeal was allowed as the Employment Tribunal had (1) not addressed the question of whether or not the information that the Appellant produced to the Tribunal, indicating that he had complained about not being allowed to do acts required by his job description and being required to act allegedly contrary to the Respondent’s finding bid and strategic plan, implicitly amounted to information that the Respondent was not complying with the funding agreement as the job description, bid and strategic plan were the means by which the terms of the funding agreement were to be implemented, (2) erred in ruling that the Appellant could not have a reasonable belief that there had been a breach of a legal obligation when he had not seen the funding agreement, and (3) did not address the question of whether or not the Appellant had disclosed information tending to show that the Respondent had concealed information about that alleged breach. For those reasons, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for consideration in accordance with the terms of the Judgment.
Lewis J
[2015] UKEAT 0409 – 14 – 0610
Bailii
Employment Rights Act 1996 43B
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565081
