Mr I Gadd v The Stockport Canal Boat Trust for Disabled People: 2406710/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2406710/2024
Between
Mr I GaddClaimantThe Stockport Canal Boat Trust for Disabled PeopleRespondent
Before
Employment Judge LeachIn person for claimantDate 21 April 2026
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s complaints of constructive unfair dismissal brought under sections 98,100(1)(c) and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 fail and are dismissed. The claimant’s complaints of being subject to detriments, contrary to section 44 and 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a boat manager or skipper. He was the respondent’s only employee.[2]The respondent resigned from this employment on 29 June 2024, claiming that he had been constructively and unfairly dismissed.[3]The claimant also says he made various protected and/or health and safety disclosures. He claims that he was subjected to detriments because he made these disclosures. B. The complaints and issues[4]The complaints and issues were set out in a list of issues identified at the preliminary hearing held on 25 May 2025. This list is annexed to this judgment.[5]I asked for further clarification on these. During the claimant’s evidence it became clear that the things about which the claimant complained all post-dated 18 March 2024, even though that was not clear from the initial list of issues. The significance of this date is noted below (paragraph 34).[6]I explained to the parties that it was important we were clear about the complaints and issues that I needed to make decisions about. At various stages I asked the claimant questions to ensure that I did understand the complaints.[7]All alleged protected disclosures (and health and safety disclosures) relate to a canal narrowboat that the respondent operates. The boat is called New Horizons (“the Boat”).[8]We identified as follows:- Protected Disclosures (para 1.1.1 of the list of Issues)[9]The claimant relies on the following: - PD1 An email dated 23 February concerning a need to install a health and safety noticeboard on board the Boat; (para 4.2 particulars of claim - POC). PD2 Discussions between the claimant and Ms Woodgate on 20 March 2024 and 10 April 2024 about the notice board issue (para 4.2 of POC). PD3 March 2024, the claimant disclosed to Ms Woodgate that the ramp to the Boat needed welding. (para 4.3 of POC). (No disclosure at 4.4 of the POC. Historic issue resolved by 18 March 2024). PD4 A snag list that the claimant was instrumental in compiling and updating (4.5 POC). This is a long list. Specifically referenced at 4.5 are propeller damage, gear failure, diesel and coolant leakage, incorrect positioning of fuel lines and electrical wiring issues. PD5 On 20 March 2024 the claimant informed Ms Woodgate that a heater had been incorrectly installed and an outstanding gas safety inspection and rushed maintenance testing would invalidate the boat safety certificate and relevant insurance policies. (4.6 POC) PD6 On 1 April 2024, claimant raised concerns about the serviceability of the Boat and the standards of the repairs that had been carried out; that the symptoms were being addressed rather than the cause. (4.7 POC). PD7 On 10 April 2024 in a telephone call with SW, the claimant repeated various faults with the Boat and health and safety risks. (4.8 POC). PD8 On 15 April 2024, gas certificate was obtained which confirmed the need for a carbon monoxide detector. (4.9) PD9 On 9 May 2024, the claimant reported to Ms Rosenbrock that a linkage retaining pin had sheared and some coolant hoses had broken – both due to excessive vibrating. This was causing coolant to leak and needed to be repaired. (4.10) PD10 On 1 July 2024,the claimant disclosed to Ms Rosenbrock (GR) that trips that had been carried out on 14 and on 27 June 2024 were not adequately crewed. However, this alleged disclosure was made after the claimant’s employment had ended and after the last of the alleged detriments. I did not therefore consider it further. PD11 On 28 or 29 June 2024, claimant contacted SW by text to cancel a booking due to a broken toilet door aboard the Boat (see below). PD12 On 29 June 2024, claimant spoke with GR about a broken toilet door aboard the Boat (see below).[10]According to the List of Issues, in addition to disclosures at paragraph 4 of the POC, the claimant alleges protected disclosures at paragraphs 7,9 and 10 of the POC.[11]As with PD10 mentioned above, the alleged protected disclosure in paragraph 7, post-dates the dismissal. I have not therefore included it in the list of disclosures above. The alleged protected disclosures in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the List of Issues arose after the claimant drafted his letter of resignation and decided to resign but before his resignation. I have considered these and the consequences of them. They are PD11 and PD12 referred to above. The detriments (para 4.1 of the list of issues)[12]The alleged detriments are at paragraphs 20.1 to 20.4 of the Particulars of claim.12.1 a deliberate failure by the respondent to acknowledge and deal with the claimant’s concerns and engage in repairs of the Boat (para 20.1).12.2 Being made to feel like a troublemaker and having his authority undermined by way of the respondent ignoring the concerns raised (in discussions the claimant accepted that this was effectively the same as 20.1 above) (20.2).12.3 A continued level of extreme stress suffered in being required to continue in his role and being responsible as boat manager to the service users and other volunteers attended. We discussed this. In the main it describes the impact of the detriments. But it also identifies a detriment of continuing to skipper the Boat when it was still in a state of some disrepair – knowing he was responsible for the safety of those onboard. (20.3).12.4 The respondent’s refusal to engage in meaningful correspondence with the claimant about the issues with the Boat (20.4). The reasons why the claimant resigned – constructive dismissal complaint,[13]The claimant provided a detailed letter of resignation setting out reasons. They are as follows:-13.1 That the Boat had an active and worsening diesel leak that caused immediate risks of pollution and fire. It needed to be fixed but there were no gaps in booking schedule.13.2 That there was no running warm water in the toilet area, there were required parts to fix this, but no time permitted to be taken from bookings.13.3 That there have been too few qualified crew going out with too many passengers.13.4 That the hull and boat safety inspection due to take place in August 2024 was moved to November 2024. This was identified by the claimant as the final straw.[14]The List of issues identities some different reasons, being(1) a continual disregard of the safety and wellbeing of the claimant, staff and service users (referring to the paragraphs that identify the claimant’s alleged protected disclosures – paras 4.1 to 4.10 and referred to above);(2) instructing the claimant to postpone maintenance of the boat (as 13.4 above – the last straw) and(3) instructing the claimant to violate a service user’s dignity by holding the toilet door or blanket up when someone wanted to use the toilet on board NH (not referred to in the claimant’s resignation letter but is PD12 above). C. The Hearing[15]This took place over 3 days. I spent the morning of day one reading the witness statements and parts of the bundle. The claimant’s statement comprised some 68 pages with significant references to health and safety legislation. The bundle comprised 806 pages. References below to page numbers are to the bundle.[16]I heard the claimant’s evidence on the afternoon of day one and the morning of day 2. I heard from Gina Rosenbrook (GR) (trustee) and Ian Watson (IW) (Trustee and Treasurer) on the afternoon of day 2. On the morning and early afternoon of day 3 I heard the evidence from Susan Woodgate (SW) (Trustee and Chair).[17]Both parties had an opportunity to provide submissions on the afternoon of day 3. Mr Allan made oral submissions. The claimant had handed up a written submissions document at the start of the hearing and relied on this. D. Disclosure Issues[18]Some disclosure issues arose during the hearing.[19]The claimant was provided with a work phone and also had his own mobile phone. The work phone was returned on the claimant’s resignation. During case management, the claimant had asked for transcripts of messages from WhatsApp groups that were used for the claimant (using his work phone) and trustees to communicate. There were different WhatsApp groups set up for different purposes. The respondent did not comply with the claimant’s disclosure request. From what I was told by the parties, the requests were very broad and to span the whole of the claimant’s employment with the respondent. When the requests were refused, the claimant did not apply for an order requiring disclosure of specific items.[20]At least one of the relevant WhatsApp groups had the claimant’s personal phone details added. The claimant had been able to download and create a document that referenced various conversations he had on his own phone. I accept that the respondent was not aware that this was something it could access.[21]I asked the claimant whether he was aware that any missing messages might be important to his case. Whilst I was concerned about an application for an order requiring the respondent to disclose a large amount of irrelevant material, I did want to provide the claimant with an opportunity to apply for an order that was targeted to relevant documents. The claimant did not make an application.[22]Another issue arose with a hull survey document or similar certificate. This arose late morning/early afternoon of day 3. Various certificates from various years were disclosed and included in the bundle, although both parties agreed that there should also have been a document from 2021. I asked the claimant if he considered it was an important document and gave him with an opportunity to apply for disclosure of this specific document even at that late stage. I was conscious that the document arose in the context of the event that the claimant refers to as the last straw that made him resign. The claimant chose not to make an application. E. Findings of fact[23]This section sets out the facts that I found, having considered the various statements, oral evidence during the hearing and documents referred to.[24]The claimant was employed by the respondent with a job title of Skipper. His contract of employment is at pages 73-77 and job specification at pages 78-81. Although the copy documents provided are unsigned, I am satisfied that these terms were the ones agreed between the parties.[25]The respondent is a small charity. It operates a narrowboat on the canals in and around Marple. The boat is called New Horizons (the Boat). The respondent runs boat trips mainly to groups of people with disabilities. The respondent’s income comes mainly from donations and funding activities. It also charges groups a fee for boat trips. Through this income the respondent is able to maintain the Boat and pay the wages of its sole employee.[26]The claimant’s work was concentrated in the period from 1 March to 31 October. This is the cruising season. The claimant was required to work 37.5 hours a week during the cruising season including some weekend and bank holiday work.[27]The claimant did not skipper all cruises. There were about 10 trustees and volunteers who were also qualified skippers and there was a rota for skippers and crew.[28]The claimant also carried out some work in the period 1 November – 28 February but the hours were fewer and by arrangement between claimant and respondent.[29]The claimants job description included: -a. Making clear that the Boat meets required standardsb. Updating volunteers and service users on health and safety issuesc. Arranging appropriate staffing of the boat (although here, “staffing” means a crew of volunteers) and maintaining a team of qualified skippers and crew.d. Responsibility for maintenance of the Boat.[30]It is also relevant to note that the health and safety during a cruise is the primary responsibility of the skipper (either the claimant – if he was skipper on a particular cruise - or the other person skippering the cruise) Boat Maintenance.[31]The claimant was able (and expected) to carry out some maintenance tasks. The tasks carried out by the claimant were smaller maintenance tasks and ones that fell within his skillset.[32]The Boat is about 45 years old. It needs maintaining on an ongoing basis.[33]At the end of 2023 and early 2024 some large maintenance tasks were identified as necessary. The Boat was sent to an expert firm in Leicestershire. When the Boat was there, more issues were identified that needed to be fixed.[34]The Boat was scheduled to be returned from Leicestershire to Bollington on 18 March 2024. The claimant and GR went to Bollington to collect the Boat and sail her back to Marple (a journey that takes about 4 hours when traveling at the speed of a narrowboat). Once they began the journey, they sensed something was wrong and they needed to return to Bollington. The immediate issue was with the Boat’s alternator which was then fixed ready for a return to Marple the following day. But GR and the claimant identified various other faults. They started to compile a list of things that needed to be fixed/addressed. This became the “snagging list” and is one of the claimant’s alleged protected disclosures (PD4). It is a spreadsheet at pages 327/8. There are 63 items. One of the columns on the spreadsheet gives each item a category. One of the categories is health and safety. Other categories include information, client comfort, function. The final version of the snagging list is the combined work of the claimant, GR and SW.[35]The respondent made the decision to delay the start of the cruising season in 2024 until 29 April. That provided 6 weeks from the Boat’s return to Marple, to address various issues and prepare the Boat. The respondent (through the claimant and its volunteers) worked on the Boat through this 6-week period.[36]I find that by the end of the period the claimant confirmed that, whilst there were still some snagging issues to address, the boat was fit enough to embark on cruises. It was not always clear in the hearing whether the claimant’s evidence was that he accepted it was fit enough. However, I note: -a. The claimant gave evidence that if there were health and safety concerns, he would have refused to allow the Boat to be used. He did not.b. The claimant signed a required “Certificate of Compliance” on 26 April 2024 confirming that the Boat complied with “The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and The Association on Inland Navigation Authorities Sound Practice, Safer Waters, Inland Waterways Small Passenger Boat Code.” (page 195)c. The claimant attended the Trustee meeting on 1 May 2024. The minutes (pages 181-182) report as follows:- “8. Boat Update – Ian G (claimant)- the boat cruising started on 29 April. There are still a number of issues which need snagging and resolution. The lift is now sorted and safe, certified and fit to use. Debdale have appointed Nick at TW Marine as agent to resolve the basic snagging issues which have been identified. Skipper to liaise with TW to get work completed. Fire Queen to visit in June to check extinguishers etc. New locks to be installed on stern and keys issued to skippers.”[37]I accept the evidence of SW that the claimant did not raise any concerns. He was not concerned that cruises/trips had begun. His report was generally positive, noting things that had been resolved and things that still needed resolving. The claimant’s other employment[38]The respondent (SW) gave evidence about this. During the cruising season, the claimant was expected to work on a full-time basis ( 37.5 hours a week). He was expected to have 2 full non-working days a week. The claimant asked for a change in arrangements so that he could work 10 days out of 14. I accept SW’s evidence that the respondent agreed to this as it was told by the claimant that it would be beneficial for his work/life balance and would enable him to spend time with his new partner.[39]Evidence was provided that indicated that the claimant was in fact working for another business over his 4 non-working days and which (unknown to the respondent at the time) meant that the claimant did not have any non-working days. Notice board (PD1 and PD2)[40]There was a Notice Board on the Boat. It had essential health and safety notices pinned to it. The claimant expressed concern to SW that the essential health and safety notices were being covered up by other information.[41]There is a message exchange dating back to 23 February 2024, mainly between claimant and SW (139/140). This message exchange shows an ongoing discussion about sourcing a notice board and the price. In the message chain(1) SW made clear that the claimant was permitted to obtain a new notice board and fit it.(2) SW sent the claimant some information about a noticeboard found online for him to consider for the Boat.[42]In his statement (bottom of page 62) the claimant asserts that the credit card issued to him was limited to buying stock for the shop on board the Boat. That is at odds with the evidence provided by IW whose evidence is that the card was for much more general use that stocking the on-board shop. I find that the card provided to the claimant enabled him to make purchases of relevant goods and services and would have enabled him to purchase the Noticeboard; that SW had not raised any objection to the claimant’s proposal to purchase an additional Noticeboard and had helped the claimant by providing him with information about a noticeboard she had identified.[43]I also accept that fitting an item such as a notice board was the type of maintenance that the respondent reasonably expected the claimant to do; that the task had not been carried out at the time he resigned, and the respondent (through its volunteers) sourced and fitted one soon after the claimant’s resignation. Ramps to the Boat (PD3)[44]Ramps are needed to enable people (particularly people with disabilities including wheelchair users) to board and leave the Boat. At paragraph 4.3 of his Particulars of Claim, the claimant states as follows:- “The claimant reported issues with the welding of various parts of the boat to [GR and SW] on 22nd July 2023. However, the claimant was not permitted any petty cash to repair and was simply told to monitor the situation. The claimant further highlighted this issue in March 2024 when he informed the respondent that the ramp was splitting up the welds resulting in the ramp no longer reaching or spanning the boat/mooring gap safely.”[45]These are my findings:-a. In his evidence at the hearing, the claimant referred to 2 relatively small welding repairs. One was completed by him (transmission linkage retaining pin) and the other was welding a ramp.b. I accept the evidence of SW that the claimant did not raise the need to weld the existing ramp either in March 2024 or any other time.c. The clamant was permitted funds to use to authorise repairs. He was provided with the pre-paid card. Also, there was nothing to stop him requesting funds from one or more trustees. There is no evidence of him not being permitted funds for repair.d. The respondent had more than one ramp. An issue with ramps only arose in June 2024 when the respondent was required to change its mooring site. The new mooring site sometimes made for a steeper incline when accessing the boat with one of the existing ramps, depending on fluctuating water levels. As a result, the respondent arranged for the purchase of a longer ramp. According to the invoice at page 326 of the bundle, it is not clear when this was ordered or delivered but the date of the invoice is 1 August 2025. The cost of the new 7ft ramp was £200.e. Had the claimant been concerned about the state of the ramp in use this was something that he could and should have dealt with as part of his employment. Heater and Gas safety Certificate (PD5 and PD8)[46]There is a long WhatsApp message from the claimant to SW dated 20 March 2024 in which the claimant raised various issues; amongst them a Webasto heater ( a heater run by diesel fuel) and a gas safety certificate. The message is at page 403:- “The Webasto Heater – what are you expecting this to be able to do? I have the paperwork which is not stamped, signed or completed in any way… and I believe it’s just a water heater. The last hot water heater worked perfectly fine. The new unit has no thermostat control.... the old radiators are still in situ despite the numerous cracks and holes so cannot be used in a closed IE connected to the new heater and the warm air blowers are only by the stern door and broken. I will chase up with Debdale how to meet the strict test criteria that should have been signed off during testing and installation phase. To validate any warranty………. Have to also chase up if a landlord gas inspection has been carried out and obtain this document.” (Debdale is a reference to the repairers).[47]In this message, the claimant was being critical of the boat repairers where the Boat had been for some months. The Boat had just been returned to the respondent at the time this message was sent. SW (who was away on holiday at the time) replied to thank the claimant for his message and to request a list of the issues to resolve, solutions and timescales.[48]Various issues with the Webasto and heater system were included on the snagging list (PD4).[49]A landlord gas safety inspection had been carried out. A copy of the resultant certificate (dated 15 March 2024) is at page 247. There is only one gas appliance on board the Boat – the galley cooker. The certificates confirms that the cooker was operating safely. A defect was identified on the certificate as the inspector had not found a Carbon monoxide (CO) alarm found on board.[50]The claimant received the gas safety certificate on 21 March 2024, as did SW. They exchanged the following messages: SW “I’ve just received the gas safety certificate; I’ll forward it over. Claimant “Yes received it one big less worry. Confused how he missed the gas detector its within a meter of our only gas appliance?? And the issue with the regulator doesn’t quite add up….but we have the certificate and that’s all that counts for a year.”[51]Messages on the 21 March 2024 (particularly from GR) evidence that concerns raised about the heating system in the Boat were being taken seriously and looked in to (pages 406-407). I note here that these events took place at the stage when the respondent (through the claimant and various volunteers) were working on the Boat; the start of the cruising season had been delayed until 29 April 2024 (see above) Concerns raised by the claimant to Ian Watson on 1 April 2024 about the serviceability of the boat and standard of repairs undertaken (PD6)[52]Ian Watson (IW) gave evidence that he had no recollection of the claimant raising safety issues with him and had he done so, would have handed the concerns on to SW.[53]The claimant did however message IW on 1 April 2024 raising concerns about the age of the boat and the repairs. His message was a response to a concerned message from IW who had heard that the claimant was worried about his job security given all the money being spent on the Boat. IW sought to reassure the claimant that the Trust was in a position of being able to afford the extensive repairs and that his job was safe.[54]The claimant replied to state his concern that the Trust may have spent a lot of money for a “very expensive bandage” whereas the problem itself might still be there. His messaged ended “she’s still 40 years plus and whilst I’m impressed with the work Debdale have done…. maintenance costs are going to pile up due to her age…. and disruption to our programme of bookings will put clients off…. pre season nerves add to by the delays and repair work I guess I am sure once all up and running things will all work out. ”[55]These messages between IW and the claimant indicate(1) that the claimant was worried about the extensive repairs that the Boat had needed, the cost of these and the prospect that they might not fix the issues and more money would be needed(2) that the claimant was worried about the long term viability of the boat and therefore his job(3) that IW sought to reassure to the claimant;(4) that following receipt of IW’s reassurance, the claimant was able to see things a little more positively and recognised he was probably over worrying things. 10 April 2024 telephone call between claimant and SW. (PD7)[56]The evidence provided shows there was a text exchange between the claimant and SW on 10 April 2024 (pages 324 and 325). The claimant’s statement does not include an account of a call on 10 April. At paragraph 443 of his statement, he notes the text exchange but then states “The respondent has taken one out of context WhatsApp message (from a dataset of evidence not disclosed to the claimant) to obscure multiple reported health and safety concerns. And fails to address the telephone conversation.”[57]I have already addressed the issue of disclosure of text messages. As for the telephone conversation, the claimant was questioned about this. His evidence was that there was a discussion about the current debit ( solo) cards being replaced; also, about various boat issues noting that a lot of the work was being/had been done.”[58]I find that no evidence was provided of the claimant disclosing information about health and safety of any individual being endangered. I base this on my own understanding of the claimant’s (limited) evidence about this alleged conversation and having read the text exchange of 10 April. This is what was exchanged. Claimant to SW and(presumably) others in the message group: “Hi all update from today and the lift engineers, after a long hard day the lift is successfully been put back together and secured to the boat correctly... and certificate safe to use!!! Nick (TW marine) acting as mediator to identify to identify what Debdale are at fault at/with and more importantly make the electrics safe again is coming Wednesday 17th so we are all systems for the 29th” the claimant ended this message with a thumbs up emoji. SW to claimant “Fantastic news, well done. Did you…” (the message appears to continue but I have not been provided with the remainder). Linkage retaining pin (PD9).[59]The claimant discovered that a part known as a linkage retaining pin had broken. He informed GR as she was on (or at) the Boat at that time. The claimant was able to fix this at short notice. It was a repair that was within his own skillset. Coolant Hoses (PD9)[60]The claimant reported other issues to GR that needed to be remedied. Other trustees (particularly SW ) were informed of repairs that the claimant had highlighted, particularly to the coolant hoses. When reporting the issue with coolant hoses it is likely (more likely than not)~ that the claimant will have expressed his view that the remedial work carried out in early 2024 had not been accrued out properly as far as coolant hoses were concerned. As a result of the reported faults, planned trips on 12,13 and 14 May 2024 were cancelled and an engineer attended to remedy the issues. I do not find that the claimant also disclosed that if the respondent failed to stop leakage of coolant material that the respondent would breach its legal obligations. The claimant’s witness evidence includes detail about the potential ramifications of the faults with coolant hoses (see particularly paras 125-136 of the claimant’s statement). This detail was not provided by the claimant at the time. I find that the detail now provided is because of research carried out by the claimant in preparation for this case. Bookings for maintenance – July and August 2024[61]Paragraph 8 of the claim form refers to 2 maintenance appointments. One was due to take place on 12 July. The claimant says this was cancelled. The respondent says it was not and SW says she made herself available (following the claimant’s resignation) to attend on the maintenance engineer.[62]A review of the claimant’s resignation letter as well as evidence given at the hearing, makes clear that it was a dry dock inspection booked for August 2024 that the claimant was instructed to cancel and that played a significant part in his decision to resign. The 12 July appointment was not mentioned in his resignation letter. In his witness statement (paragraph 455) the claimant confirms that the “more pressing issue” was the dry dock maintenance/inspection slot in August 2024.[63]I find that a maintenance appointment did take place on 12 July and that SW attended. Further, it played no part in the claimant’s decision to resign.[64]SW accepts that she asked the claimant to cancel a dry dock maintenance appointment in August 2024. Her evidence is as follows:-a. The claimant had not booked this time out on the Boat’s booking schedule. The dates were therefore booked for cruises.b. The appointment was not an emergency. The Boat did not need to be inspected in a dry dock in August.c. The claimant had booked this slot himself without discussion with any trustee (including SW); yet he knew that August was the height of the season for the Boat.d. The Boat had regular (at least annual) dry dock appointments and inspections. The pattern for these was to book them in November and/or March – either at the end of a season or just before the start of a season.e. Following the return of the Boat on 18 March 2024 (when substantial work – including a zinc coating – had been carried out to the hull of the boat) it was recommended that the Boat’s hull would be inspected after it had been in the water for at least 6 months.[65]The claimant’s evidence is:-a. that he had earlier mentioned to SW that the Boat had been booked in in August (the claimant did not provide further details of how or when).b. that it needed to be booked in because the Boat entered the water again in February 2024 and Mike Carter (see below) stated that an inspection needed to be carried out 6 months later. Mike Carter is a third-party engineer who had carried out many inspections of the Boat and knew its history.[66]Having heard from both the claimant and SW and considered the evidence, I prefer SW’s evidence on this point. Her evidence is also supported by the Hull Survey report of November 2024 carried out by Mike Carter. This was the work that, on the claimant’s case, needed to have been done in August 2024 because Mike Carter had stated that. What came across in evidence from both claimant and respondent, is a high regard for the expertise and professionalism of Mike Carter. There is nothing in the detailed report to indicate that the respondent was errant in some way in not having the survey carried out earlier. The final paragraph of the survey is as follows:- “The quality of the repairs and the recent works completed to the craft’s hull is testament to the focus that the owners put on maintenance of this craft. If the very good standard of maintenance is continued to be delivered on a regular basis, using good quality materials and processes then this craft could be of service to its owners for some years to come.”[67]I also note that if, as the claimant alleges, he had earlier mentioned to SW that he had booked the Boat in for a dry dock inspection in August, she would have discussed it at that stage with the claimant, knowing that would be the hight of the cruising season and also knowing that dry dock inspections were carried out in November. Prior to his resignation, the claimant did not tell SW that he did not agree with the instruction to move the dry dock inspection to November. He did not raise a grievance. He did not refer the issue to the trustees for example at a trustee meeting. He decided to resign. Claimant’s resignation.[68]The claimant’s letter of resignation is at pages 82-84. It is dated 29 June 2024 but was written by the claimant on 27 June 2024. The claimant’s evidence (that I accept) is that he had made his decision to resign by 27 June. His intention was to fulfil skipper duties on cruises on 28 and 29 June 2024 and resign straight after then by delivering his letter.[69]The claimant skippered a cruise on 28 June 2024 (the day after he made his decision to resign and the day before his intended resignation date). Near or at the end of that cruise, a wheelchair user became trapped between folding WC doors. Whilst this passenger was being freed, a hinge broke on one of the doors.[70]The claimant decided that the cruise for the following day needed to be cancelled so that this could be fixed. The claimant’s evidence is that he tried to contact SW so that she could arrange for the cruise on 29 June to be cancelled. SW’s evidence is that the claimant did not contact her. SW was busy packing that evening, ready to depart on holiday on the morning of 29 June 2024. She says that she did not receive a message from the claimant. What is certain is that the claimant and SW did not speak or exchange messages.[71]The claimant did not contact the passengers due to sail on the cruise on 29th. The claimant’s evidence is that he only had emergency contact details for the organiser of the next day trip and they were unreachable out of hours.[72]The claimant’s evidence in his witness statement is that he had no authority or means to cancel bookings. On this point:-a. In his evidence at the Tribunal, the claimant accepted that as the skipper of the boat he did have authority to cancel bookings.b. The respondent provided the claimant with a work phone, a laptop and various contact details. Therefore, he had the means to.c. There are trustees in addition to SW, including a trustee responsible for bookings. The claimant did not attempt to contact anyone other than SW. Clearly this situation had some urgency to it – the claimant did not want the intended passengers to have a wasted journey the next day. He wanted to let them know the evening before that the cruise would be cancelled. But he also knew that Trustees carried out roles on a voluntary basis. They are not employees of the Trust, paid to be available at certain times or “on call”. It is little surprise to me that SW was not contactable one evening and I have no criticism of her not being available to help the claimant with the issue. Other trustees may have been available.[73]The claimant attended at the Boat on the morning of 29 June 2024. GR also attended to meet with the claimant. GR had just returned from holiday. At page 98 and 99 is a note that GR made some 3 weeks after the claimant’s resignation. It includes GR’s account of the morning of 29 June.[74]I accept GR’s evidence about the events of 29 June. GR was (and possibly still is) a friend of the claimant. She is also one of the respondent’s trustees and voluntarily supports the respondent’s activities. Her evidence (that I accept) is that she was feeling to have been caught as a “piggy in the middle” between the claimant and SW in the weeks leading up to the claimant’s resignation. The claimant mentioned concerns about the boat and in turn GW would tell him to speak to SW. Also on occasion SW voiced a concern about the claimant and GR asked SW to speak with the claimant. During the week of GR’s holiday, SW and the claimant were scheduled to crew the boat together on 3 occasions and GR hoped they would be able to discuss concerns they had.[75]Whilst on holiday, GR received a message from the claimant raising concerns about the Boat. She was unable to understand the claimant’s message and arranged to meet the claimant at the Boat on 29 June at 9am, just after her return from holiday. She met the claimant who was with another volunteer called Ian Cheshire. She was shown the toilet door with the broken hinge(s) and realised on seeing it that the Boat was not usable that day.[76]GR asked the claimant if that day’s cruise had been cancelled. Whilst the claimant indicated he had sent a message to SW it was not clear to GR that the trip had been cancelled and she messaged SW (who was en route to her holiday). SW told GR that she had not received a message and was not aware of the issue and asked GR about other options such as using a curtain as a temporary measure. Both GR and the claimant considered that there were no options other than to cancel that day’s trip. Unfortunately, the group that had booked the trip that day had not been notified, and they were informed on their arrival at the Boat that morning.[77]Once the call with DW ended, the claimant provided GR with his resignation letter. He took the letter from his bag, signed it in front of GR and handed it to GR for her to accept on behalf of the Trustees.[78]The claimant did not leave immediately. GR spoke with him and asked him to reconsider. She suggested he could meet with a couple of the Trustees and raise the concerns he had. The claimant replied that he was adamant, he had made his decision and was not going to change his mind.[79]GR asked the claimant when he was thinking he would be leaving. The claimant replied that he had not had any holidays, that he was due to be on a 4-day rest period following that day (29 June) and it would be his last day. The claimant handed GR his keys, the work credit card, phone, chargers, laptop and what GR describes as “reams of paper.” The claimant had attended the Boat on the morning of 29 June, with all these items as well as his resignation letter. I find that he had made his decision to resign, prior to the morning of 29 June 2024. The discussion with SW on the morning of 29 June, was irrelevant to this decision. Health and Safety concerns raised in the claimant’s resignation letter.[80]One section of the claimant’s resignation letter is headed “Details of Health and Safety Violations.” I set out below (in full) the content of this section. “Over the past three months I have tolerated numerous health and safety breaches where the trust has placed profit over safe practice despite me continually mentioning them through the appropriate channels, including but not limited to: 1. Non conformity with canal and river trust small boat code: the boat has an active and worsening diesel leak that despite 2 efforts by a marine engineer to fix, poses an immediate threat both in terms of pollution and fire risk. No further gaps in booking were allocated at that time, Disregarding the severity of the issue. 2. HSE workplace health safety and welfare. Non provision of a supply of running warm water within the toilet area. While this issue was and has been repeatedly reported since the boats return from Debdale( Mar 24) the required parts to resolve the issue with the new heater installation are available (currently held in our store) no time was permitted to be taken from bookings to complete the installation of the new heater system this continued disregard for basic sanitary requirements prioritises profit over the fundamental needs of our passengers, the carriers and our staff reflecting the trust's neglectful approach to safety and welfare.. 3. Staff/passenger allocation. At the end of season 2023 the trust as an accredited NCBA training school, planned to train additional staff to expand the existing cohort of skippers. Due to a mechanical breakdown towards the end of the season, this training was unable to be completed. Despite a significant increase in demand for additional skippers no time was allocated at the beginning of the 2024 season to address this critical shortfall. As a result, to meet the pressures of the booking calendar competent knew staff who were not qualified as either Helms or skippers have been forced to go out with existing trained, but not qualified instructor//mentors/skippers. This practise endangers both staff and passengers violating the trusts obligation and NCBA ruling to ensure that 2 fully trained and certified individuals are responsible for operating the vessel. Furthermore, to maximise profit the trust has repeatedly allowed more than the committed 12 passengers by designating some as “ crew.” While a few of these individuals may have received some training from multiple trips many have had no training at all. This dangerous practise has been increasing this season, further compromising safety. Additionally, there was an instance where 5 passengers were wheelchair users. This significantly increases the time required to safely evacuate all passengers in an emergency, thereby placing everyone on board at greater risk, again against NCBA rules, which states a maximum of three.[81]I make the following findings in relation to this extract from the claimant’s resignation letter:-81.1 The claimant obtained legal advice in drafting this letter. That was his evidence.81.2 The respondent is a small charity. It does not make profits. It does have an income from trips which it uses to maintain the Boat and pay its one staff member. Other than the one staff member (at all relevant times that was the claimant) everyone else gives their time and services voluntarily. Reference to the respondent placing profit over safe practice does not in any way reflect the reality. It is possible that these comments reflect a lack of understanding on the part of those advising the claimant.81.3 The claimant had not made any attempt to address concerns through “appropriate channels” as he alleged in this resignation letter. I have carefully considered the claimant’s various alleged protected disclosures. None involved a disclosure at a Trustee meeting (which the claimant was always invited to attend); none involved the claimant putting in writing a grievance or making a protected disclosure in writing. The claimant had access (through his works laptop) to various policies that the respondent had in place including a grievance policy and a whistleblowing policy. When the claimant did commit anything to writing he indicated that there were issues but that he was generally happy with how repairs etc were progressing. See particularly the claimant’s comments at the Trustee meeting on 1 May and his email exchange with IW.81.4 There is no evidence of the claimant raising any issues about crew shortages.81.5 The concerns about a diesel leak relate to diesel in the Boat’s “bilge” . There are references on the snag list to bilge pumps. The claimant’s evidence (witness statement at 131 to 136 particularly) notes that the maintenance on 12-15 May 2024 included rectification of the diesel leaks. There is no evidence of the claimant raising concerns about diesel leakage between then and the claimant’s resignation letter. Notably, the claimant does not allege that he made a protected disclosure about diesel leakage (other than it being part of the snagging list – PD4 – drawn up in March 2024). Health and Safety Concerns raised in the claimant’s statement.[82]The claimant has included a considerable (and well researched) amount of detail in his witness statement about various health and safety and other legal issues. I have noted above my findings of fact about what was said or written on those occasions that the claimant alleges protected disclosures were made. My findings as to what was said or written do not include the vast detail about the various implications/potential implications set out in the claimant’s witness statement because this detail was not disclosed. The Law Constructive and unfair dismissal
The Law
[83]The claimant claims(1) that his resignation amounted to a constructive dismissal and(2) that this dismissal was unfair under s98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[84]Dismissal for the purposes of s98 includes the circumstances stated at s95(1)( c). “ …..an employee is dismissed by his employer if…….the employee terminates the contract under which he is employed (with or without notice) in circumstances in which he is entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer’s conduct.”[85]In considering the issue of constructive dismissal, an Employment Tribunal is required to consider the terms of the contractual relationship, whether any contractual term has been breached and, if so, whether the breach amounts to a fundamental breach of the contract (Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v. Sharp [1978] QC 761).[86]It is an implied term of every employment contract that the employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee (see for example Malik v. BCCI [1997] IRLR 462 at paras 53 and 54). I refer to this term as “the Implied Term.”[87]In considering the Implied Term, Browne-Wilkinson J in Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Limited [1981] ICR 666, said that the tribunal must “look at the employer’s conduct as a whole and determine whether it is such that its effect, judged reasonably and sensibly, is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.”[88]A course of conduct can cumulatively amount to a fundamental breach of contract entitling an employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal following a “last straw” incident, even though the “last straw” is not, by itself, a breach of contract: Lewis v Motorworld Garages Limited 1986 ICR 157 CA.[89]In the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council 2005 1 All ER 75. Dyson LJ stated as follows in relation to the last straw. “A final straw, not in itself a breach of contract, may result in a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The quality that the final straw must have is that it should be an act in a series whose cumulative effect is to amount to a breach of the implied term. I do not use the phrase “an act in a series” in a precise or technical sense. The act does not have to be of the same character as the earlier acts. Its essential quality is that, when taken in conjunction with the earlier acts on which the employee relies, it amounts to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It must contribute something to that breach although what it adds may be relatively insignificant.”[90]The Court of Appeal decision in Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] IRLR 833, commented on the last straw doctrine. The judgment included guidance to Employment Tribunals deciding on constructive dismissal claims. At paragraph 55 of the judgment, Underhill LJ states:- In the normal case where an employee claims to have been constructively dismissed it is sufficient for a tribunal to ask itself the following questions:(1) What was the most recent act (or omission) on the part of the employer which the employee says caused, or triggered, his or her resignation?(2) Has he or she affirmed the contract since that act?(3) If not, was that act (or omission) by itself a repudiatory breach of contract?(4) If not, was it nevertheless a part (applying the approach explained in [LB Waltham Forest v. Omilaju [2005] ICR 481] of a course of conduct comprising several acts and omissions which, viewed cumulatively, amounted to a (repudiatory) breach of the [implied term of trust and confidence]? ……(5) Did the employee resign in response (or partly in response) to that breach? None of those questions is conceptually problematic, though of course answering them in the circumstances of a particular case may not be easy.[91]Once repudiatory breach of contract has been established, it is necessary to consider the part it played in the claimant’s decision to resign.[92]A delay in resigning may indicate that the employee has affirmed the contract, so losing the right to claim constructive dismissal. Protected Disclosures[93]The claimant claims that he was subjected to detriments on the grounds that he had made protected disclosures. Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) provides as follows: “(1) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure.”[94]Section 43A ERA - Meaning of “Protected Disclosure”: “In this Act a ‘protected disclosure’ means a qualifying disclosure (as defined by section 43B) which is made by a worker in accordance with any of sections 43C to 43H.”[95]Section 43B ERA– Disclosures qualifying for protection: “(1) In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, is made in the public interest and tends to show one or more of the following –a. that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject;b. that the health and safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered; ………………………….[96]Section 43C ERA: “A qualifying disclosure is made in accordance with this section if the worker makes the disclosure... –(a) to his employer,(b) ………………..[97]Section 48(2) ERA: This section provides that on a complaint under these provisions: “…it is for the employer to show the ground on which any act or deliberate failure to act was done.” Qualifying disclosures[98]In considering whether there have been one or more qualifying disclosures in this case I have considered guidance provided by several cases including(1) Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed [2017] IRLR 837 (“Chesterton”),(2) Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850 (“Kilraine”).(3) Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board [2012] IRLR 4 (“Korashi”)(4) Kuzel v. Roche Products [2008] ICR 799 (“Kuzel v. Roche”)(5) Parsons v Airplus International Limited UKEAT/0111/17.(6) Simpson v.Cantor Fitgerald Europe 2020 ICR 236 (“Simpson”)(7) Wharton v Leeds City Council EAT 0409/14.[99]Having regard to the terms of the ERA and the case law referred to above, the following is relevant:98.1 The worker making a disclosure must reasonably believe that it is made in the public interest and also has to reasonably believe that it “tends to show” one or more of the subject matters listed at 43B(a) to (f) ERA.98.2 The terms of section 43B ERA require a reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure (our emphasis). This wording provides a mixed objective and subjective test. The test is not whether there is a reasonable belief on the part of a reasonable worker; rather the test is whether the particular worker making the disclosure has a reasonable belief. “The definition has both a subjective and an objective element: ….. The subjective element is that the worker must believe that the information disclosed tends to show one of the six matters listed in subsection (1). The objective element is that that belief must be reasonable.” (Chesterton – at paragraph 8)98.3 The question as to whether the particular worker has a reasonable belief that there is or is not a disclosure in the public interest is a question to be answered by the Tribunal on a consideration of all the circumstances of the particular case.98.4 There must be some objective basis for the worker’s belief, for that belief to be reasonable. Some evidence is required; rumours, unfounded suspicions, uncorroborated allegations, and the like will not be good enough to establish a reasonable belief (Korashi).98.5 It is possible to consider 2 or more disclosures together in determining whether a protected disclosure has been made. As to whether 2 or more disclosures considered together amounted to a protected disclosure is a question of fact for an Employment Tribunal to determine (Simpson – paragraphs 31-34)98.6 The information disclosed only must “tend to show” one or more of the matters set out in (a) to (f) of section 43B. It does not have to prove the matter and information may, in the reasonable belief of the worker “tend to show” one or more of the relevant matters even if the worker is in fact mistaken. (Kilraine).98.7 A disclosure of information is required. On this we note the judgment in Simpson (paragraph 20) in which the earlier judgment in Kilraine was considered: “As the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kilraine v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2018] ICR 1850 makes clear, section 43B(1) of the 1996 Act should not be glossed to introduce into it a rigid dichotomy between “information” on the one hand and “allegations” on the other. The question in each case, as has now been made clear, is whether a particular statement or disclosure is a “disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the [matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (f)]”. However, in order for a statement or disclosure to be a qualifying disclosure, it has to have a “sufficient factual content and specificity such as is capable of tending to show one of the matters listed in subsection (1)”. The question of whether or not a particular statement or disclosure does contain sufficient content or specificity is a matter for evaluative judgment by the tribunal in light of all the facts of the case: see Kilraine at paras 31, 35 and 36.”[100]We were also referred to the EAT judgment in Eiger Securities v. Korshunova [2017] ICR 561, particularly the guidance at paragraph 46 which is relevant in a case in which a claimant relies on section 43B(1)(b) (breach of a legal obligation) when proving that a qualifying disclosure has been made: “The identification of the obligation does not have to be detailed or precise, but it must be more than a belief that certain actions are wrong. Actions may be considered wrong because they are immoral, undesirable or in breach of guidance without being in breach of a legal obligation.”[101]In deciding whether there have been protected disclosures, I have taken note of the EAT’s decision in Blackbay Ventures Limited v. Gahir (UKEAT/0449/12) (Blackbay). This authority tells me I need to apply a structured approach to decision making. I repeat below a relevant passage from that judgment. 98. It may be helpful if we suggest the approach that should be taken by employment tribunals considering claims by employees for victimisation for having made protected disclosures. 1. Each disclosure should be identified by reference to date and content. 2. The alleged failure or likely failure to comply with a legal obligation, or matter giving rise to the health and safety of an individual having been or likely to be endangered or as the case may be, should be identified. 3. The basis upon which the disclosure is said to be protected and qualifying should be addressed. 4. Each failure or likely failure should be separately identified. 5. Save in obvious cases if a breach of a legal obligation is asserted, the source of the obligation should be identified and capable of verification by reference for example to statute or regulation. It is not sufficient as here for the employment tribunal to simply lump together a number of complaints, some of which may be culpable, but others of which may simply have been references to a check list of legal requirements or do not amount to disclosure of information tending to show breaches of legal obligations. Unless the employment tribunal undertakes this exercise it is impossible to know which failures or likely failures were regarded as culpable and which attracted the act or omission said to be the detriment suffered. If the employment tribunal adopts a rolled up approach it may not be possible to identify the date when the act or deliberate failure to act occurred as logically that date could not be earlier than the latest of act or deliberate failure to act relied upon and it will not be possible for the Appeal Tribunal to understand whether, how or why the detriment suffered was as a result of any particular disclosure; it is of course proper for an employment tribunal to have regard to the cumulative effect of a number of complaints providing always they have been identified as protected disclosures. 6. The employment tribunal should then determine whether or not the claimant had the reasonable belief referred to in s.43B(1) and under the 'old law' whether each disclosure was made in good faith; and under the 'new' law whether it was made in the public interest.[102]On the issue of causation, I have been guided by the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Fecitt v. NHS Manchester [2011] EWCA 1190, including:-101.1 Paragraph 45: “Section 47B will be infringed if the protected disclosure “materially influences (in the sense of being more than a trivial influence) the employer’s treatment of the whistleblower.”101.2 Paragraph 51 “... where the whistleblower is subject to a detriment without being at fault in any way, tribunals will need to look with a critical — indeed sceptical — eye to see whether the innocent explanation given by the employer for the adverse treatment is indeed the genuine explanation. The detrimental treatment of an innocent whistleblower necessarily provides a strong prima facie case that the action has been taken because of the protected disclosure and it cries out for an explanation from the employer.” Detriment[103]The judgment of the House of Lords in Shamoon v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11 is a leading judgment on the meaning of detriment. Whilst that is a decision of a case brought under sex discrimination legislation, the terms of that judgment must be applied when considering whether something amounts to a detriment for the purposes of section 47B ERA. We note particularly paragraph 31-37 of that judgment and the following arising from those paragraphs:-102.1 That a Tribunal, in deciding whether the act a claimant complains of amounted to a detriment, should consider whether a reasonable worker would or might take the view that he had been disadvantaged in the circumstances in which he had thereafter to work. (para 34).102.2 To show a detriment, it is not necessary to show some physical or economic consequence ( para 35)102.3 That an unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to a detriment (para 35) Burden of Proof[104]The claimant claims that he was subjected to detriments on the grounds that he made one or more protected disclosures. Section 48(2) ERA provides that on a complaint of being subjected to a detriment contrary to section 47B ERA, it is for an employer to show the ground on which any act or deliberate failure to act was done. The burden of proof therefore is on the employer/respondents. Although that burden of proof only applies if the claimant proves:-103.1 that he made one or more protected disclosures103.2 That he was subjected to a detriment.[105]On the burden of proof issue I note the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Serco Ltd v. Dahou [2017] IRLR 81, a case about Trade union detriment and dismissal, where the statutory terms on burden of proof are the same. We note:-104.1 It is for the employee to make out a prima facie case104.2 Assuming a prima facie case made out, it is for the employer to show the purpose of his act, proving what were the factors operating on the mind of the decision maker104.3 However, where an employer is unable to show to the Tribunal the reason for an act or failure to act, it does not automatically follow that the claimant succeeds in an unlawful detriment complaint although it usually would.
Conclusions
[106]Set out below are my conclusions on the various complaints and issues listed in the Annex. Protected Disclosures[107]The first issue I need to address is whether any protected disclosures were made. Mindful of the guidance in Blackbay I have endeavoured to identify (by clarifying the protected disclosures relied on and in my findings of fact) the date and content of each alleged protected disclosure. My findings below address issues 1.1.1 -1.1.6, against each of the alleged protected disclosures. PD1 and PD2. Noticeboard. This was a discussion about an improvement to the Boat; a second noticeboard would ensure that various notices – including health and safety notices- would be more visible. The claimant did not make a disclosure that the respondent would be in breach of legal obligations or endangering health and safety if a new noticeboard was not installed. Further, had the claimant considered at the time that was the position, it was within the scope of his duties to purchase and hang the noticeboard. The fact that he took no such steps indicates that he did not consider that, without it, health and safety would be endangered and/or the respondent would be in breach of its legal obligations and/or damage to the environment (I refer below to these 3 areas – health and safety, legal obligations and damage to the environment collectively as the “Unlawful Activities”). Had the claimant made a disclosure that tended to show that a failure to provide the noticeboard was a disclosure about Unlawful Activities then that would have been in the public interest, given that the health and safety concerns were about passengers on the vessel (users of disability charities and/or services and their carers). PD3. Ramp. Repairing the ramp and/or buying a replacement ramp. (see findings of fact at para 44 and 45). According to the claimant he first raised issues about the ramp in July 2023. There is no evidence of this; for example no reference in Trustee meetings or in disclosed emails/text messages. In 2024, the cruising season began at the end of April 2024. There was therefore 2 months of cruising that took place before the claimant resigned. That would have been the time when issues with an unsatisfactory ramp would have been most apparent; yet the claimant did not make any protected disclosure in that period; he skippered the boat and used existing ramps. I also note that no issues were raised about the ramp in the weeks leading up to the claimant’s resignation (which included the period when the respondent had to change its moorings- see para 45d above). Had ramps been the concern that the claimant now says they were, they would have been raised at that stage and ass one of the health and safety issues in the claimant’s resignation letter. They were not. I conclude that the claimant did not make any disclosure about any of the Unlawful Activities as far as a ramp was concerned. PD4 Snag List. This was a list that the claimant and GR put together so that the respondent (through the work of the claimant and its volunteers) could work through. It was not a list of failures by the respondent to comply with legal obligations or matters giving rise to health and safety being endangered. It was a list of jobs to do and a way of helping prioritise and record the completion of those jobs. If I am wrong about this and the inclusion of an item on a snag list/job list would “tend to show” (for the purposes of section 43(B)(1) ERA) an Unlawful Activity then it must follow that the disclosure was made in the public interest, given the many users (passengers and crew) of the Boat. It must also follow that if the “tended to show” element of the definition is met that the claimant’s belief that items added to the snagging list “tended to show” Unlawful Activities then that was a reasonable belief. PD5. Heater and outstanding gas safety certificate. See findings of fact at para 46-51. Disclosing that there was no CO monitor/alarm when there should have been one present is a disclosure about a breach of a legal obligation and/or that the health and safety of occupants of the Boat might be endangered. But the disclosure was not by the claimant. The claimant reassured the respondent that there was no such breach as a CO monitor/alarm was in place. (see para 50) As for the issues raised with the heating system, they were items added to the snagging list and my conclusions about these issues are noted under PD4 above. PD6. Reference to concerns raised by the claimant on 1 April were concerns raised with IW. See findings of fact at paras 52-55 above. In his message exchange with IW, the claimant raises concerns about the wisdom of the repairs made to such an old boat and the financial viability of the respondent. There is nothing in these exchanges that amounts to a disclosure about any of the Unlawful Activities. PD7. See findings of fact at paras 56-58. There was no disclosure of information. I do not therefore need to go on and address items 1.1.3 -1.1.6 PD8 – see PD5 above. PD9 – Coolant Hoses. There is no dispute that the claimant raised the need for repairs including repairs to coolant hoses. He did therefore disclose information. Whilst the claimant disclosed information about repairs that needed to be carried out he did not make disclosures that the respondent was in breach of legal obligations and/or endangering health and safety. If the Boat was leaking harmful substances, then that would indicate a legal breach. But the claimant’s disclosure was about repairs that were needed to the Boat and not about the consequences of those repairs not taking place. My conclusions are the same as those under PD4, snagging list. PD11 – Claimant text to SR about broken toilet door. I can deal with this by confirming my finding of fact that SW did not receive any text from the claimant about the broken toilet door. I do not need to reach any other conclusions about this alleged disclosure. PD12. Claimant discussion with GR about broken toilet door. It is not disputed that the claimant told GR about the broken hinges on the Boat’s toilet door. Indeed GR saw the broken door for herself. In telling GR about (and showing her) the broken door, the claimant disclosed information. I also conclude that information would tend to show an Unlawful Activity. The claimant disclosed this information in the context of the cruise on that day needing to be cancelled immediately. The claimant’s belief that there was a health and safety issue (that to run the cruise was likely to endanger the health and safety of passengers and/or crew) was a reasonable belief. PD12 meets the definition of a protected disclosure. Unfair Dismissal Issue 2.1.1[108]Conclusions to issue 2.1.1.1 109.1 My conclusion is that the respondent did not continually disregard the safety and wellbeing of the claimant, staff and service users as alleged. This conclusion should be clear from the findings of fact. In summary:-109.1.1 The Boat needed extensive repairs at the end of the 2023 cruising season.109.1.2 The respondent arranged for those repairs to be carried out.109.1.3 The Boat returned from the repairers and whilst significant structural repairs had been successfully and expertly completed, various snagging issues were identified, some seemingly because of poor work done at the repairers.109.1.4 The respondent, through the actions of the claimant and its volunteers, worked through a snagging list that the claimant had helped to put together. The respondent did not refuse to carry out any repair that had been identified on the snagging list (whether identified as a health and safety repair or otherwise)109.1.5 The respondent put back the start of the 2024 cruising season until 29 April to enable the work to be carried out.109.1.6 When other repairs were identified- the Boat was taken out of service to enable those repairs to be done (noting particularly the 3 days in May 2024 as well as the 29 June 2024).109.1.7 The claimant’s evidence (that I accept) is that he would not have allowed the Boat to sail if he did not consider it was safe to do so.109.1.8 At all times (and with the claimant’s assistance) the respondent maintained the Boat and ensured it was safe to use.[110]Conclusions to issue 2.1.1.2110.1 This issue raises 2 allegations and I deal with each in turn.110.2 The respondent did instruct the claimant to postpone the dry dock inspection/maintenance of the Boat that he had booked to take place in August 2024. He was not instructed to postpone maintenance scheduled for 12 July. See findings of fact at 61-67 above.110.3 The respondent did not instruct the claimant to violate his and a service user’s dignity by holding up the broken toilet door or a blanket as a makeshift toilet door. See my findings of fact at paragraph 76. No such instruction was given. SW was told about the issue of the toilet door. At the time she was on her way to her holiday. She was not on site. She was willing to talk through the possibility of options other than cancelling the cruise, knowing that the claimant had failed to take sufficient steps to cancel the cruise the evening before and that passengers were about to arrive. However, options other than cancellation were then rejected by the respondent. The cruise on 29 June 2024 was cancelled and passengers were informed. The claimant was not instructed as alleged. Conclusions to Issue 2.1.2[111]As noted above, the respondent did instruct the claimant to delay the dry dock inspection/maintenance. It had reasonable and proper cause for doing so. The Boat did not need to go in to dry dock in August. The claimant had not told anyone (including SW) that he was making the booking, and he had not noted the booking on the Boat’s booking schedule. The Boat habitually went into dry dock at the end of the cruising season. The extensive work that had been carried out on the hull did need an inspection but that could be carried out in November rather than in August. See findings of fact at 64-67 above.[112]As I conclude that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its action of instructing the claimant to delay the dry dock inspection, I do not need to reach conclusions under 2.1.2.2 Conclusions to 2.1.3; 2.1.4 and 2.2[113]There was no fundamental breach of contract. No further conclusions need to be reached under these issues. Conclusions to 2.3-2.6[114]There was no dismissal (either constructive or actual dismissal). No further conclusions need to be reached under these issues. Conclusions to issue 4 (Detriment).[115]I have concluded that only PD12 meets the statutory definition of protected disclosure. PD12 post-dates any of the alleged detriments. It cannot therefore have materially influenced the respondent’s treatment of the claimant in relation to any of them.[116]I have however considered and reached conclusions about the alleged detriments, in case my conclusions about the protected disclosures are wrong, particularly noting my conclusions under PD4, PD5,PD8 and PD9. Detriments alleged at20.1 and20.2 of the Particulars of Claim[117]The claimant alleges that he was subjected to a detriment by the respondent:-117.1 Failing to acknowledge and deal with his concerns117.2 Failing to engage in repairs of the Boat117.3 Making the claimant feel like a troublemaker by ignoring the concerns raised.[118]It will be apparent from my findings of fact and the conclusions to the constructive dismissal complaint that I do not find that the claimant’s concerns were ignored. Nor do I find that that the respondent failed to engage in repairs to the Boat.[119]The one occasion that the respondent failed to engage in repairs of the Boat in accordance with repair booking that the claimant had made, was the dry dock inspection. See my conclusions above.[120]As for a failure to deal with the claimant’s concerns; it is apparent that the claimant had concerns about the Boat that extended beyond the alleged protected disclosures that I have been tasked with considering. I say this noting the vast amount of detail contained in his statement and the evidence about conversations he had with GR. (see para 74 above). But he did not raise these in any adequate or comprehensible way. As far as this case is concerned, I have necessarily considered the protected disclosures raised in his claim and reached conclusions about those. But beyond the subject matter of the alleged protected disclosures, it is apparent from my fact finding that the respondent was committed to ensuring the Boat was properly maintained and safe. If the claimant considered that other things should have been done, that may have been (in part or in whole) through misunderstandings or misperceptions on his part and it is unfortunate that he and the respondent were unable to engage in a discussion to address these. Detriment alleged at 20.3[121]The claimant alleges that he was required to continue to skipper the boat when it was still in a state of disrepair.[122]Again, it will be apparent from my findings of fact and conclusions that this was not the case. I note specifically:-122.1 That when repairs were needed, the Boat was made available – note the delayed start to the 2024 cruising season, the repairs carried out on 12-15 May, the repairs carried out on 29 June 2024 and 12 July 2024.122.2 That the claimant had a voice at the Trustee meetings.122.3 That the claimant confirmed at the meeting on 1 May that the boat was ready to use.122.4 That the claimant accepted that if there were health and safety concerns, he would refuse to skipper the boat. Other than 29 June 2024, the claimant did not refuse to skipper the Boat. On 29 June 2024 he was not required to continue to skipper the Boat. The respondent agreed that the trip on that day had to be cancelled. Detriment alleged at 20.4[123]The claimant alleges that the respondent refused to engage in meaningful correspondence with the claimant about the issues with the Boat.[124]Again, it will be apparent from my findings of fact that the respondent did not refuse to engage in meaningful correspondence. Had the claimant engaged in meaningful correspondence with the respondent (before providing his resignation letter) then I have no doubt that the respondent would have tried to address the claimant’s concerns. Having been provided with the concerns set out in the claimant’s resignation letter, that is exactly what they tried to do.[125]Sadly, inadequate communication almost certainly contributed to the claimant’s employment with the respondent coming to an end. But I am afraid that inadequacies in communication were the claimant’s. I note particularly, his failure to effectively communicate about the dry dock booking he made; his failure to communicate with the passengers due on the trip on 29 June; his failure to communicate with the Trustees his concerns about the Boat (including after he provided his resignation letter and was given an opportunity by his friend GR to do so).[126]For the reasons set out above, the claim fails. Approved by: