Mr M Hadj Rabia v Vision Redbridge Culture and Leisure Ltd: 3200208/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal does not succeed and is DISMISSED.[2]The claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 that the Claimant has suffered detriment on the ground that he made protected disclosures does not succeed and is DISMISSED.[3]The Claimant is ORDERED to pay costs of £250 to the Respondent under Rule 76 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The costs must be paid to the Respondent within 21days JUDGMENT having been sent to the parties on 27 September 2021 and reasons having been requested by the Claimant in accordance with Rule 62(3) of the Rules of Procedure 2013.REASONS
[1]Written reasons for the judgment given to the parties orally on 23 September 2021 have been requested by the Claimant on 28 September 2021 and are as follows:-[2]In this case, the Claimant makes two claims. His first complaint is of unfair dismissal. He says he was dismissed on 1 November 2019 for an automatically unfair reason by reference to Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) because the reason for the dismissal was that he made protected disclosures. This is sometimes called a whistleblowing dismissal.[3]A qualifying protected disclosure is defined in Section 43B of the 1996 Act and the Claimant relies upon sub-sections (b) and (d) as explained below.[4]The Respondent contends that the Claimant was dismissed with notice for serious misconduct. His notice period ended on 29 November 2019 and he was paid up to that date. The Claimant had already received a final written warning for misconduct on 12 February 2019 which had not expired.[5]The Claimant’s second claim under section 47B of the 1996 Act is that he was subjected to detriment as a result of acts or failures to act by the Respondent and that the detriment occurred on the ground that he made protected disclosures i.e. because he was a whistle-blower.[6]At a Preliminary Hearing which took place on 27 July 2020 the parties were assisted by Employment Judge McClaren to compile and agree a List of Issues which appears as part of her Case Management Summary and can be found at pages 87-89 of the bundle. We have worked from this List of Issues which sets out the questions which the Tribunal are required to answer in this case.[7]There was an agreed bundle of documents in paper format available to the Tribunal and the parties at this in-person hearing. In accordance with the usual practice of the Tribunal, which we explained to the Claimant, we read only those documents in the bundle to which our attention was directed by the parties, the representative and the witnesses.[8]The Claimant confirmed that he has no language or literacy difficulties and no physical or mental health difficulties save for a mild reactive depression. This confirmation was sought because the Claimant was unrepresented and seriously un-prepared for the Hearing. He said that he had not read any of the relevant documents since ‘a long time ago’ or his own witness statement for ‘quite a long time’. He was advised at the end of each day of the Hearing to ensure that he familiarised himself with the documents and the Respondent’s witness statements. He was given extra time during the Hearing to re-read his own witness statement before giving evidence and being cross examined. In furtherance of the overriding objective he was guided by the Employment Judge in terms of the preparation he needed to do in order to give his own evidence in chief and undertake cross examination of the witnesses. That guidance was however largely met with expressions of frustration from the Claimant. These comments are recorded in order to explain why at several points in these Reasons we point out that no evidence to prove his case was produced or elicited by the Claimant.[9]The Claimant has from time to time had assistance from an advice agency but the nature and extent of that help is unclear.[10]The Claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. He had obtained a witness order for a former colleague Ms Neelufa Rahman. The order was subsequently discharged by Employment Judge Burgher on 13 February 2021. Nonetheless Ms Rahman did appear to give evidence on the second day of the Hearing having been asked by the Claimant to come. She was an unwilling witness and thus the Tribunal agreed to release her and said that it would read her short witness statement. That statement contains little of any relevance to the issues in this case.[11]The Respondent’s witnesses were Ms Caroline Rudwick, Area Manager and his then line manager, who investigated the Claimant’s conduct on 20 August 2018, Ms Anita Luby (Culture, Libraries and Heritage Manager) who issued the final written warning on 12 February 2019 and Mr Kevin Wackett ( Head of Parks and Open Spaces), a decision maker as part of the disciplinary panel which took the decision to dismiss the Claimant. Ms Luby was also a member of that disciplinary panel. The Respondent also called Ms Helen Goddard to give evidence; she was the Claimant’s senior reporting manager from 5 September 2018 until his dismissal and she both observed and managed his work and behaviour at Ilford Town Hall and then at the Mildmay Centre. Finally, Ms Caroline Ward also gave evidence for the Respondent; she is a Community Director Trustee for the Respondent and sat on the appeal panel which decided to uphold the dismissal.[12]The Claimant and counsel for the Respondent made oral submissions and we had the benefit of an Opening Note and Skeleton Argument prepared by Respondent’s counsel.[13]The Claimant was employed as a Facilities Assistant and worked for the Respondent since 24 September 2014. His job description is at page 113 of the bundle from which it can be seen that he could contractually be asked to work at any of the Respondent’s locations. His role includes no management or supervisory responsibilities. His job included the cleaning and maintenance of buildings, the provision of a safe and secure environment for staff and customers and the setting up, cleaning and clearing down of halls and facilities run by the Respondent which had been hired out for functions, concerts and local activities. There is a full list of his duties at page 113.[14]In some of the documents in the bundle the Claimant is named as Mohammed Hadj and on occasion his name is spelled Rabai. He confirmed to us that the full name he uses is Mohammed Hadj Rabia and this is the correct spelling. The Tribunal record has been amended accordingly.[15]In terms of the Claimant’s disciplinary record we note that he had a verbal warning (now expired) for conduct issues in 2015.[16]The Respondent is a charity and a not for profit organisation which delivers culture and leisure services for the London Borough of Redbridge and employs approximately 750 staff.[17]Unfair Dismissal We are certain that the reason for his dismissal relates to Mr Rabia’s conduct. That is why he was dismissed and not because he was a whistle-blower as he contends. The Respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds that he was guilty of the misconduct which was alleged against him. That conduct consisted of six allegations which are set out in the letter inviting him to a disciplinary hearing on pages 441-443 of the bundle and notified to him again at the commencement of the hearing itself at page 534.[18]The allegations were formulated on reasonable grounds because there were documented complaints against the Claimant by several different colleagues and coworkers and by his managers as follows:- i) The Mildmay Centre where the Claimant latterly worked is also occupied by a part of the local NHS Foundation Trust called NELFT. There was a complaint by a member of NELFT staff, the Nursery Manager Ms Maria Wilson, that the Claimant was rude and abusive towards her and engaged in aggressive and threatening behaviour on 3 June 2019. This was witnessed by her colleague, Ms Rukhsana Ahmed (page 495-7). The allegation was found proven. ii) The Claimant was alleged to have been absent from work without authorisation and/or late for work on 23 and 28 May 2019. These two incidents were found proven after Mr Wackett had seen the relevant documents and heard the evidence of at least four relevant witnesses confirming the Claimant’s actions and omissions. iii) The Claimant was accused of insubordination and refusal to carry out reasonable management instructions at the end of May 2019 when, contrary to his instructions, he insisted that staff clear the Mildmay Centre premises at 6pm so that he could clean when in fact staff were entitled to occupy it and work there until 8pm. There is a written complaint about this incident and the ‘poor cleaning standard’ from Ms Renata Wojciechowska at page 499 of the bundle which forms part of the investigation report. This misconduct was found proven. iv) There were two other complaints of aggressive and threatening behaviour in a telephone call to his immediate line manager Mr Bilal Iqbal and further allegations of insubordination which were not upheld by Mr Wackett because of ‘insufficient evidence’.[19]We find it extremely unlikely that each of these members of staff some from different parts of the Respondent’s organisation and from the NELFT staff conspired collectively to ensure that the Claimant was dismissed. He insists in his evidence that he has been the victim of a consistent campaign to persistently check up on him, belittle and demean him and to ensure that he lost his job.[20]The Claimant was given advance notice of the specific allegations and knew the case against him which he had to answer at the disciplinary hearing on 28 October 2019. He was accompanied and represented by his trade union official, Mr Jonathan Coles. The Claimant and his TU representative saw all the documentary evidence that was compiled by the investigator at pages 447-502 and they were able to question three relevant witnesses who made allegations of inappropriate and insubordinate behaviour against him – Mr Bilal Iqbal, Ms Maria Wilson and Ms Helen Goddard ( his senior line manager). It was the allegations involving interaction with Mr Iqbal that were found not proven against the Claimant thus demonstrating that the disciplinary panel listened to the evidence given by all the witnesses including the Claimant himself and did not pre-determine any issue. We are certain that in advance of the disciplinary hearing the Respondent carried out a reasonable, thorough and conscientious investigation of the alleged misconduct and the Claimant has made no allegation that there were inadequacies in the investigation process. We reiterate that the investigation conducted by Ms Barbara Dann, an Area Manager, discovered robust complaints against the Claimant from a number and variety of his co-workers and staff at the Mildmay Centre.[21]The disciplinary hearing was adjudicated upon by Mr Kevin Wackett who chaired the meeting in a way which was thorough and fair, as appears from the detailed notes at pages 534 -547 of the bundle which the Claimant did not query. The Claimant makes no allegation that any unfair or incorrect procedure was followed although he does consistently state that there was an over-arching and widespread conspiracy to ensure that he was dismissed and he says that Mr Wackett was part of this conspiracy. In his oral evidence Mr Wackett confirmed that during the course of the disciplinary the Claimant provided very little information or evidence to support his defence of any of the allegations against him. The Claimant had not appealed his final written warning from February 2019.[22]Upon examination of the documentary evidence and with regard to his oral evidence including responses to cross examination we are satisfied that Mr Wackett took an unbiased and independent view of the disciplinary matters. The Claimant was unable to point us to any evidence to the contrary. This conclusion that the result of the disciplinary hearing was not pre-determined is supported by the fact that Mr Wackett found two of the allegations (numbered 3 and 4) against the Claimant to be not proven because there was insufficient evidence. If Mr Wackett had been determined, from the outset, to make sure that the Claimant was sacked, or indeed if he had been instructed by anyone to ensure that the Claimant was dismissed, it is not likely that he would have made that decision to dismiss two of the allegations.[23]We also note that Mr Wackett had no prior knowledge of the Claimant and was appointed to chair the disciplinary meeting from a different part of the Respondent’s service. He is Head of Parks and Open Spaces, at the same level of seniority as Mr Gareth Morland, and not connected with the Libraries and Culture department in which the Claimant worked.[24]Ms Luby also confirmed that in her previous limited dealings with the Claimant she had never been in dispute or conflict with him, was unbiased and had no ’axe to grind’.[25]The disciplinary outcome letter signed by Mr Wackett and dated 1 November 2019 is at page 548 and confirms in clear terms the conduct reasons why the Claimant is dismissed.[26]The Claimant had an independent appeal to members of the Board of Trustees of the Respondent. Again the Claimant was unable to demonstrate by reference to any written or oral evidence that the Board or any member of it was biased against him, had made up their minds in advance to confirm his dismissal or had been instructed to ensure that his employment was terminated. We have seen no evidence, save for the Claimant’s wideranging assertions, that there was any conspiracy in which the Board of Trustees were involved. There is similarly no evidence that the members of the Board of Trustees were told by the Claimant’s Head of Service, Mr Gareth Morland, who the Claimant calls the ’big brother’ to make sure that the Claimant was dismissed. The notes of the appeal meeting and the oral evidence given by one of the Trustees fails to disclose any procedural or substantive flaws in the way in which the appeal was conducted.[27]We are satisfied that the sanction of dismissal on notice was within the range of reasonable responses in response to the Claimant’s proven misconduct. This was not a summary dismissal for gross misconduct.[28]The Claimant was found to have had more than one unauthorised absence and episodes of significant lateness for work, to have been guilty of insubordination, rude and threatening behaviour and he was the subject of an existing final written warning which had not expired and in respect of which he had not appealed the warning. He received a disciplinary outcome letter which gave him a clear explanation of the decision reached by Mr Wackett and the reasons for it . He similarly received a clear explanation as to why his appeal did not succeed and the appeal outcome letter dated 4 December 2019 is on page 513 of the bundle.[29]In summary, we agree with counsel on behalf of the Respondent that it would have been ‘extraordinary’ if the Claimant had not been dismissed for his conduct and his behaviour towards his colleagues and managers given that he was already the subject of a final written warning relating to previous serious misconduct.[30]We reiterate that the issue of a final written warning in a letter on page 393 of the bundle was an appropriate and reasonable decision by Ms Anita Luby in response to the allegations which were found proven against the Claimant on 12 February 2019 in relation to the Claimant’s conduct over the period from 20 August 2018 to 12 February 2019. There is no demonstrable need for us to go behind that decision and re-examine it.[31]Those allegations, addressed in detail in the minutes of 5 February 2019, were of unauthorised absence from work on 20 August 2018, insubordination and refusal to carry out reasonable management instructions on 10 and 13 October 2018 and of aggressive and threatening behaviour, witnessed by Ms Goddard, which caused a physical and psychological reaction from his immediate line manager Ms Clissold which was adverse to her health. The events of 10 October and a later incident on 13 October 2018 are eloquently described at paragraphs 13 to 22 of Ms Goddard’s witness statement which we accept as true and accurate. Ms Clissold later requested, on 15 October 2018, that Mr Rabia be transferred away from the Town Hall. That transfer was not possible until 29 April 2019 when the Claimant moved to the Central Libraries facilities team which also looked after the Mildmay Centre.[32]Allegation 1 was treated as particularly serious by Ms Luby. The relevant conduct was admitted by the Claimant. From 8pm onwards he was the sole member of staff responsible for the safety and security of the Respondent’s facility at Wanstead Library on 20 August 2018 and for the occupants of the hall which is part of the Library and which had been hired from the Respondent for that evening. He was entrusted with remaining on the premises and in attendance and instead, without permission, he left the facility and its occupants unsupported and unattended in breach of his employment obligations whilst locking one of the two potential exit doors. He left the hall at 8.10pm, went to eat food at the mosque following the end of Ramadan and returned at 10 pm as was evident from the cctv camera footage viewed by Ms Rudwick.[33]This allegation involved complaints by three of the Claimant’s colleagues – Ms Vanessa Brown, Mr Richard Icare and Ms Caroline Rudwick. Again, the Claimant’s characteristic response was to refer to each of his colleagues in highly pejorative terminology, for example he told Ms Rudwick that Ms Brown was a ‘jackal …out to get something on me’ and accuse them of treating him like a child, always checking on him and conspiring to treat him unfairly.[34]There is no imperative for us to look behind the rationale for Ms Luby’s decision which was not appealed by the Claimant at the time. We repeat our conclusion, based on the industrial experience of the Tribunal, that many employers would have dismissed the Claimant for gross misconduct at this point in his employment and would have had a fully arguable case that such an earlier dismissal was fair.[35]There was no procedural difficulty or flaw in the way in which Ms Luby dealt with the first disciplinary hearing resulting in the final warning in February 2019.[36]The Claimant received an informal ‘note’ about his refusal to carry out proper instructions on 2 April 2019 and his rude responses as appears at pages 417-422.[37]We set out below our further findings in relation to the section 47B detriment claim which the Claimant makes in relation to this incident.[38]Detriment because of Whistleblowing. In relation to the claim of detriment by acts of the Respondent (or failures to act) done on the ground of the Claimant’s making of protected disclosures we first wish to make a finding about the period which the Claimant calls deliberate ‘delay’ which occurred between 20 August 2018 (the date of the incident at Wanstead Library) until the final written warning was given on 12 February 2019. At page 89 in paragraph 4.1.5 the Claimant identifies this delay as a detriment under section 47B and says that this period of delay created what is summarised as an ‘accumulation of issues which permitted them i.e. the Respondent to give a more serious penalty’.[39]We find that that no such detriment occurred. First, the Claimant admitted his conduct on 20 August 2018 and, as we have stated above, that conduct, following investigation and a fair adjudication was likely to have been sufficient on its own for the most serious penalty of dismissal. It was unnecessary for the Respondent to inflict the detriment of delay in order to accumulate more evidence against the Claimant so that it could dismiss him. The said evidence was already obtained, not least from the Claimant’s own admissions.[40]We therefore do not conclude that the delay until the final written warning in February 2019, was a deliberate decision by the Respondent to cause the Claimant detriment. Instead of being immediately dismissed after the incident on 20 August 2018, he was given another chance and allowed to move to the Town Hall in Ilford where there were staff shortages which he could cover. That move was entirely in accordance with the contractual right of the Respondent to move him to a different location. When he moved to the Town Hall in Ilford, he received welcoming messages both from Ms Goddard at page 257 and Ms Clissold at page 259. Both those messages counteract the Claimant’s view that he was being punished by being moved to Ilford where he would be set up to fail and be dismissed. We make no such finding.[41]Thereafter, the decision to add to the remit of the investigation carried out by Jade Wilkinson some additional complaints made against the Claimant was not unreasonable, given that the Claimant’s conduct was found to fall below the expected standards quite quickly after he arrived at Ilford Town Hall. For example, by 10 October 2018 he had failed to set up for a function, argued with the hirer and raised his voice to Ms Clissold when disputing her instructions, to the extent that Ms Goddard was obliged to intervene. Similarly on 13 October 2018 he refused to carry out his duties until spoken to by a male member of the Human Resources team. Ms Goddard’s statement refers to his persistent disputes with colleagues and dereliction of his contractual duties. The delay between August 2018 and February 2019 was not we find, a significant flaw in the disciplinary process.[42]We turn now to the important question we must first ask ourselves which is whether Mr Rabia did make protected qualifying disclosures as defined in Section 43B of the 1996 Act. The alleged disclosures are set out in detail at paragraph 3.1.5 on page 89 of the bundle.[43]Page 89 of the Summary accurately identifies that the disclosures are said by the Claimant to be in the public interest. He says that they were made because they tended to show that the Respondent had failed, was failing, or was likely to fail to comply with a legal obligation (section 43B (1) (b) ) and/or that they tended to show that the health and safety of any individual had been, was being, or was likely to be endangered ( section 43B (1) (d)).[44]The Claimant said that he made the first such disclosure on 21 or 22 August 2018 to Ms Caroline Rudwick from whom we heard evidence. She was his line manager who came to talk to him about what had happened on 20 August, the preceding evening. The Claimant said that he disclosed to Ms Rudwick that he was required to work eleven hours without a break on 20 August 2018 in breach of working time regulations. He also said that he told Ms Rudwick that was ‘unlawful’ to have just one person working at the Wanstead Library at any time and it was unlawful to require him to work alone.[45]We find that the Claimant made no such disclosures to Ms Rudwick. We accept and believe her denial that any such disclosures were made to her. In addition, we find that the Claimant himself did not reasonably believe that he was required, ‘forced’ or obliged to work for eleven hours without a break. He knew that that this was not the case, as he admitted in his own written and verbal evidence.[46]The Claimant knew the details of the work programme for 20 August 2018 which is at page 243 and it covers the period from 12pm until 11pm. There are gaps between events at the hall on that day during which the Claimant could have taken a break, including leaving the building to go out, buy and/ or eat food. It is clear that until 8pm in the evening there was at least one other person on site to cover the relevant duties on the premises if the Claimant took a break. The Claimant knew that he could go out before 8pm and indeed he did go out at 7:15pm to buy some dates to break the fast. He was only required to stay on the premises as the sole responsible worker between 8pm and 11pm – 3 hours. He was only working alone after 8pm when other staff left. Even during the said three hours he was able to take a toilet and/or snack/drink break inside the hall, as Ms Rudwick confirmed. Thus, he cannot reasonably have believed that there was any failure to comply with any legal obligation to afford him breaks during the day and/ or that there was endangerment of the health and safety of any individual including himself.[47]On 20 August 2018, a date on which the Claimant had agreed to cover the rota, it was the end of the fast of Ramadan which occurred at around 8pm – 8:15pm and the Claimant wanted to take his break at that time and have a communal meal at mosque. He told Jade Wilkinson, the HR investigator, in an interview recorded at page 340, that he had saved up his breaks that day, a total of one and three-quarter hours, so that he could go to the mosque and break the fast there. This comment illustrates that he knew that he could have breaks during the eleven hour day because he deliberately saved them up. In fact the Claimant was unable to have his long break at the time he wished to and he resented that fact. He and his duty manager on that day Mr Icare tried unsuccessfully to get cover for the evening from 7pm onwards but it was not possible and the Claimant was unwilling to accept the consequence of the failure to re-arrange his rota.[48]Nevertheless the Claimant took his own decision, contrary to instructions, to go out anyway at 8.10pm; he was viewed on cctv leaving the building. He locked the front door to the hall to exclude intruders but that also meant he closed and locked one of the exits with the hirer group inside. In the event of an emergency the occupants only had one out of two potential exits to use and this was dangerous practice.[49]Ms Rudwick viewed the cctv as she was entitled to do given the seriousness of her initial investigation. She credibly denies that the Claimant made qualifying protected disclosures at all. That evidence is in her witness statement. She said that the Claimant just told her he needed a break and he took one. She found and checked the work programme for 20 August 2018 because she wanted to reassure herself that there had been opportunity for the Claimant to take breaks earlier in the day.[50]The further disclosures are said by the Claimant to have been made verbally to Ms Pam Clissold who was the Claimant’s new manager at Ilford Town Hall. We are satisfied that no such disclosures can have occurred on 23 or 24 August 2018 with reference to paragraph 3.1.1.2 at page 87 of the bundle because the Claimant was not working with Ms Clissold then. He did not transfer to Ilford until 5 September 2018. It can only be subsequent to those dates that he complained to Ms Clissold or others that four people were needed to set up and supervise functions at Ilford Town Hall and that two employees were insufficient. This was, he said, his own opinion and how it was done in the past.[51]There is no evidence produced or shown by the Claimant of any specific occasion or date when he communicated to Ms Clissold or any other of the Respondent’s managers how or why the fact that there were two members of staff on the rota to set up as opposed to four people amounted to a failure to comply with any specific legal obligation or endangered the health and safety of anyone. There is evidence recorded in an email on page 269-70 and in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Ms Goddard’s statement that on 10 October 2019 Ms Clissold and Ms Goddard were able to set up the Hall within 20 minutes, without significant difficulty, on an occasion when the Claimant and his colleague had failed to complete the task at all.[52]It is not sufficient to amount to a protected disclosure for an employee to make general allegations that his disagreement with the Respondent’s procedures is a matter of endangerment to health and safety or a legal breach. There must be specific and cogent information conveyed which identifies the date and content and source of the legal obligation which has allegedly been breached or shows details of the potential health and safety problem. We have looked at the document on pages 295-298 sent by the Claimant to Ms Goddard on 12 November 2018. It is headed “grievance” but within the three and a half pages there are no identifiable qualifying disclosures about health and safety or breach of legal obligation as defined by the 1996 Act. In response to that grievance, Ms Goddard reasonably told the Claimant that he should include all of those matters in his response to the ongoing disciplinary investigation so that the relevant discussions could take place. She assured him that if those complaints were not resolved by the disciplinary decision maker then the Claimant could bring a separate grievance at a later date. We find that this was a reasonable, fair and pragmatic response to the matters he raised.[53]On the subject of emails passing between the Claimant and his managers at Ilford Town Hall, there are, by contrast, documents at pages 269, 271 and 289 in which Ms Goddard and Ms Clissold record contemporaneously in writing that regular conflict, dispute, insubordination, failure to meet the required standard of work, and poor behaviour including raising his voice and engaging in rude and aggressive language are all matters which originated with the Claimant himself.[54]In his answers under cross examination the Claimant was unable to identify with any particularity or precision what legal and/or health and safety obligations or regulations were the subject of his alleged disclosures. For example, he says that on 10 October 2018 he made disclosures to Ms Clissold about health and safety concerns alleging that two staff were insufficient to set up the Town Hall for a concert, that ‘ two big men’ or four people were needed in his opinion and that insufficient time was allocated to the task. He referred to moving heavy furniture and ‘being pushed to work faster’. Ms Clissold’s account of the interaction was given on 4 December 2018 as part of Ms Jade Wilkinson’s investigation into the Claimant’s conduct. At page 389-90 of the bundle Ms Clissold describes an intemperate tirade by the Claimant consisting of the assertion of his own opinion as to how the work should be carried out but in no part of the investigation is there any specific identification by the Claimant of any legal obligation that has been breached or any particulars of how or why he discloses that the health and safety of any individual is likely to be endangered. Similarly in his email at page 422 addressed to Ms Clissold the Claimant simply complains vociferously about his own perceived ill treatment but makes no qualifying disclosures.[55]Finally, if we are wrong about the existence of protected disclosures in this case, we are nonetheless still satisfied that none of the detriments listed at pages 89 and 91 of the bundle and recorded in the Case Management Summary by Employment Judge McLaren, are acts or omissions of the Respondent done on the ground that protected disclosures were made. In other words, even if there were protected disclosures, we find that there is no link to any alleged detriments.[56]In brief;a. Paragraph4.1.1 - We find that the Claimant was not removed from his role at Wanstead Library and sent to Ilford Town Hall to report to Pamela Clissold as a detriment. There was a staff shortage at the Town Hall, and he was needed. This was not a punishment; he was given another chance to work elsewhere than Wanstead Library where he had been discovered to have engaged in significant mis- conduct. The move was implemented in accordance with his contract and job description.b. Paragraph4.1.2 - We are satisfied that the Claimant did not suffer the detriment of being exposed to verbal abuse by Pamela Clissold. There is no documentary or witness evidence of these allegations. We are certain, as recorded in the contemporary emails sent by Ms Clissold and Ms Goddard and in Ms Goddard’s evidence in these proceedings that it was the Claimant who demonstrated discourteous, rude and insubordinate behaviours. Ms Clissold responded with reasonable management instructions to the Claimant’s insubordination, lack of co-operation and poor standards at work. She did not initiate those disputes.c. Paragraph4.1.3 – This is the issue which the Claimant raises about duties allocated to him on rotas. We find that there were no such detriments occurring as a result of any protected disclosure made by him. First, the Claimant had no supervisory duties and therefore no such duties were taken away from him. Secondly, the rotas which we have seen at pages 307 – 315 of the bundle show that the various duties of the Facilities Assistants/Caretakers were shared between the staff in the same or similar pattern of work. The Claimant was not singled out to do more menial or difficult tasks than others. There was basically a mix of tasks for everyone to do and all had a mix of start and finish times. It is significant that the Claimant was unable or unwilling to produce his own analysis of the rotas in order to in any way support his complaints.d. At paragraph4.1.4 the Claimant identifies the detriment of being investigated for alleged misconduct in February and October 2019. We are satisfied that the reason that the investigation was initiated was not because he made protected disclosures but because there was a genuine belief of the Respondent based on reasonable grounds that such misconduct had occurred. There were several complaints about him from numerous colleagues concerning his behaviour and his work which needed investigation. All but two of the allegations of misconduct were subsequently found proven by the panel chaired by Mr Wackett and that decision was confirmed by an independent appeal body.e. Paragraph4.1.5 – We have already dealt with the allegedly detrimental period of delay between 20 August 2018 and February 2019 and have nothing to add.f. Paragraph4.1.6 – The Claimant’s final move, in accordance with the contractual mobility clause, to another work location at the Central Library/Mildmay Centre was not, we find, a detriment which occurred as a result of any protected disclosures by the Claimant. There was a good and sufficient reason for the Respondent’s action in transferring Mr Rabia to Mildmay. To put it bluntly, it was because there was nowhere else for him to go. At Wanstead and at Ilford he had comprehensively fallen out with many of his colleagues and come into regular conflict with colleagues and managers, some of whom requested that he be removed from their workplace.[57]In all the circumstances of this case, the claim of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed. The complaint under Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 that the Claimant has suffered detriment done on the ground that he made protected disclosures also fails and is dismissed.[58]Costs. The Respondent’s application for costs succeeds and the Claimant, having given evidence about his ability to pay any costs order, is ordered to pay £ 250 to the Respondent for the reason that his claims are misconceived, having no reasonable prospect of success. He was sent a costs warning by the Respondent on 23 July 2021 and again on 21 September 2021, at the close of the first day’s evidence, when he was openly invited to settle his case on the basis of immediate withdrawal and no costs sought. He declined to accept this compromise and was warned of the costs consequence.[59]The Respondent asks only for its costs of Days 2 and 3 of the Hearing by reference to counsel’s discounted refresher fees. We agree with the Respondent’s submission on costs which is that, after the first day of evidence, it was clear that the reason for the Claimant’s dismissal was his repeated misconduct and that his claim under section 103A of the 1996 Act was misconceived. A Hearing on the basis of a ‘simple’ conduct dismissal was unlikely have exceeded one day.[60]Similarly the Claimant was unable to show or elicit any evidence that he had made qualifying protected disclosures as defined by the 1996 Act and/or that any detriment was experienced by him which was in any way linked to a qualifying disclosure. It was clear after Day 1 that this complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. In addition we find his conduct of this case to have been on balance unreasonable for the reason that he was ill prepared to give his own evidence or to cross examine the Respondent’s witnesses having not read the relevant documents thoroughly or at all. Indeed he had apparently not read the witness statements recently including his own statement. The Claimant concedes that he simply ‘took my chance because I believed in my case’ and was prepared to take the risk of costs which he will pay.[61]He has no significant assets in the way of a property, vehicles or valuables but he does have savings of £450 including money given to him by a friend. He has no dependents and lives on Universal Credit having not obtained any new permanent employment since his dismissal almost two years ago. In all the circumstances we are satisfied that a costs order is appropriate and the Claimant has the means to pay the sum of £250 which is 25% of the amount claimed by the Respondent.