Employment Judge Phil AllenIn person for claimantMs E Evans-Jarvis (instructed by solicitor) for respondentDate 21 April 2023
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant did make public interest disclosures to the respondent in an email to Mr Holroyd sent in June 2021 about RAC standards, and in an email to Ms Dippenar in June 2021 about the building being open while a water meter was fitted. The other disclosures relied upon were not public interest disclosures.[2]The principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal was not that he made either or both of the public interest disclosures found. The claimant’s claim for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not succeed and is dismissed.[3]The claimant was not subjected to a detriment on the ground that he had made either or both of the public interest disclosures found. The claim for detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not succeed and is dismissed.[4]The claimant was not treated unfavourably because of race. The claim for direct race discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 does not succeed and is dismissed.[5]The claimant was not treated unfavourably because of sexual orientation. The claim for direct sexual orientation discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 does not succeed and is dismissed.[6]At the time when these proceedings were begun, the respondent was not in breach of its obligation under sections 1 and 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide the claimant with a statement of terms and conditions of employment and/or a written statement of any particulars of change.[7]The respondent did make an unauthorised deduction from wages when it failed to pay the claimant in June or July 2021 for overtime worked throughout his employment, which Aleem had committed the respondent to pay in a conversation in June 2021.[8]The unauthorised deduction from wages which the respondent made and which it is ordered to pay to the claimant is the sum of £485.10.