Gahir v Blackbay Ventures Ltd T/A Chemistree, [2014] IRLR 416
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, asserting her termination was primarily due to her making protected disclosures. However, the EAT overturned the finding that she had suffered a detriment due to her employer's actions.
Principles Derived:
Protected Disclosures and Unfair Dismissal: Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 mandates that if the primary reason for an employee's dismissal is that they made a protected disclosure, such dismissal is considered unfair. Determining the primary reason is fact-centric and is the prerogative of the employment tribunal.
Detriment Claims: When alleging detriment due to a failure to act (excluding dismissal) in relation to Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it is essential to distinctly identify the detriment and the date of the said inaction. Especially when relying on an alleged deliberate failure to act, determining the exact date becomes crucial.
Facts: The claimant, employed as a pharmacist, highlighted numerous health and safety issues and legal non-compliances to her employer just two days after starting her job. Though her concerns were promptly addressed by the employer's superintendent pharmacist, subsequent interactions, including her request for time off being denied and her distributing a complaint letter to other employees, led to her dismissal due to "mutual unsuitability".
Application of Law to Facts: The employment tribunal found that the principal reason for her dismissal was her protected disclosures, making her termination automatically unfair as per Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Additionally, the tribunal determined she suffered a detriment due to the stress from the employer's failure to adequately address her concerns.
The EAT, while supporting the tribunal's stance on unfair dismissal, reversed the detriment finding. Given the short duration between her raising concerns and her dismissal and the employer's swift response, it was improbable for her to harbour a reasonable sense of grievance for the period she claimed to have been stressed.
For individuals contemplating appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the Employment Tribunal, especially in cases related to unfair dismissal and protected disclosures, this case serves as a significant precedent
