The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s claims all fail, and are dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal on 15 October 2024 in which he complained that he had been subjected to detriments contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), and automatically unfairly constructively dismissed contrary to section 103A of ERA, on the grounds that he had made protected disclosures; and that he was unlawfully deprived of pay in relation to annual leave accrued but untaken as at the termination of his ETZ4(WR) employment. In addition, he complained that the respondent had failed to permit him to take annual leave at the appropriate time, contrary to Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.[2]The respondent submitted an ET3 response in which they resisted the claimant’s claims.[3]The claimant submitted further and better particulars to clarify and expand upon his claim (81ff).[4]A Hearing was listed to take place before the Employment Tribunal at Edinburgh on 14 to 16 April 2025. The claimant appeared on his own behalf, and the respondent was represented by Mr Cunningham, Advocate.[5]A Joint Bundle of Documents was presented to the Tribunal and relied upon by both parties in the course of the Hearing.[6]The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf. The respondent called two witnesses: Pauline Strain, Human Resources (HR) Manager; and Sohaib Ghafoor, Director and Principal Operator.[7]At the outset of the Hearing, the Tribunal heard submissions on the claimant’s application to add a further detriment to the list relied upon in this case, namely that he was never provided with fire safety training by the respondent. Following those submissions, the Tribunal refused the application, for reasons given orally at the Hearing.[8]There was no agreed list of issues available to the Tribunal, but the claims were discernible from the different documents, including Preliminary Hearing Notes issued by the Tribunal in the course of the proceedings. I address the issues at the start of the decision section below.[9]Based on the evidence led and the information provided, the Tribunal was able to find the following facts admitted or proved. Findings in Fact[10]The claimant, whose date of birth is 20 May 1993, commenced employment for the respondent on 16 February 2024.[11]The respondent is a company, of which Sohaib Ghafoor is the Director and Principal Operator, which runs 23 sites in Scotland, each with its own manager. The site managers report to 4 area managers, who report to Mr Ghafoor, who reports to the respondent’s Board.[12]The claimant was employed to work as a driver based at a Pizza Hut takeaway restaurant in Kirkcaldy. On his arrival, he was met by the area manager, Tomasz Chmielewski, who showed him round the restaurant, including the fire exits, and gave him his Statement of Main Terms of Employment (215ff), which both he and Mr Chmielewski signed on that date (219). The Statement provided that he would be paid £10.42 per hour and that his hours would be 12 per week.[13]Under “Annual Holiday”, the Statement provided: “Your annual holiday entitlement is 28 days. Bank and Public Holidays are classed as a normal working day and you will be required to work these if they form part of your rota. Employees wishing to book a bank holiday off work should follow the normal holiday booking procedures. Holiday entitlement for part-time employees is calculated on a pro rata basis by reference to the days/hours worked per week. The holiday year runs from 1st April until 31st March. There is no provision to carry holidays forward nor for additional payment in lieu of entitlement not taken by the end of the holiday year. Your holiday will accrue pro rata on the first day of each month of that year. If upon leaving you have exceeded your accrued holiday entitlement, the excess may be deducted from any sums due to you from the Company.”[14]So far as training was concerned, the Statement provided: “All employees are required to complete mandatory training, this includes on the job training, classroom based learning and online e-learning. All training and learning will be paid and on company premises unless agreed otherwise.”[15]The Statement provided for a probationary period of 6 months for the claimant, whereupon his performance would be reviewed.[16]In addition, it stated that the claimant’s notice period would depend upon his length of service, but that within his probationary period, he would require to give 1 week’s notice (as would his employer) of termination of employment, and that thereafter the notice period would be 4 weeks for the claimant, and 4 weeks for the respondent, up to a maximum of 12 weeks.[17]The site manager was Abid Hussain. The claimant’s evidence was that while Mr Hussain taught him how to make a pizza as required, he did not give him any training in relation to health and safety, fire safety or a fire drill. The Tribunal did not hear evidence from Mr Hussain.[18]The claimant was trained in using the app given to them to use, handling food, treating customers, timescales to follow and what schedule to follow.[19]A Fire Drill Training Form was completed (2) with a number of names listed, confirming that they had taken part in a fire drill. The date of the fire drill was set out in the left hand column, then the name of the employee and a signature. The claimant’s name appeared against 10 February 2024 (6 days prior to his start date). As was discovered by investigation at a later date, the claimant did not sign this document, but another manager had signed in his name, dishonestly.[20]On 16 April 2024, the claimant submitted a grievance to the respondent in relation to his annual leave entitlement (6): “Dear Ms Strain, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention a matter of importance regarding my annual leave entitlement at Glenshire Brands. Attached to this email you will find a formal grievance letter outlining the details of my concerns. I kindly request that you treat the contents of the attached letter as strictly confidential. This grievance letter contains sensitive information regarding my employment and is intended solely for your review and consideration. I want to emphasize that sharing this document with any third parties, including other employees or external entities, is strictly prohibited without my explicit consent. I trust that you will handle this matter with the utmost discretion and professionalism. If you have any questions or require further clarification regarding the contents of the grievance letter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you for your attention to this matter.[21]The grievance itself was set out in the letter attached to the email (211): “Dear Ms Strain, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to formally raise a grievance regarding the handling of my annual leave entitlement by Glenshire Brands 1. As an employee of Glenshire Brands 1, specifically within Pizza Hut as a Delivery Driver, I was surprised to discover that 21 hours of my accrued holiday entitlement have been removed without any prior notification or reminder from the company. Additionally, I was not informed of the possibility of using these holidays, nor was I provided with information on how to book annual leave. Upon contacting my Area Manager, Tomasz Chmielewski, regarding this issue, he explained that the ‘take it or lose it’ policy is indeed outlined in the employment contract and that it is my responsibility to use my holidays on time. However, I believe that the company failed to adequately inform me of the procedures and policies regarding annual leave, resulting in this oversight. This action by Glenshire Brands constitutes a breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998, which stipulates that employees are entitled to a minimum amount of paid annual leave and any forfeiture of this entitlement should be clearly communicated and justified. The failure to provide clear and timely communication regarding the management of my annual leave entitlement constitutes a breach of my rights as an employee under the law. As an employee, I rely on clear communication and guidance from the company to ensure that I am aware of my entitlements and responsibilities. The lack of information provided regarding the use of my annual leave has left me feeling unfairly treated and uninformed. I respectfully request that Glenshire Brands conduct a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the handling of my annual leave entitlement. I also request that appropriate measures be taken to rectify this situation, which may include reinstating the lost holiday hours or providing alternative compensation for the time lost. Please be advised that I have shared this grievance letter with my trade union, GMB Scotland, to ensure a fair and transparent process in addressing this matter. Thank you for your attention to this grievance. I look forward to your prompt response and a resolution that upholds the rights and interests of all employees at Glenshire Brands.[22]Ms Strain invited the claimant to attend an investigation meeting on 10 May 2024 at 11am at Glenshire House, Randolph Industrial Estate, Kirkcaldy. She confirmed that she would hear the grievance, and be accompanied by Eilidh Armour as notetaker.[23]The meeting took place on 10 May 2024. Ms Armour prepared notes of the meeting (12ff). It was recorded in the notes that the meeting took place on Thursday 9 May 2024. All parties agreed that this was incorrect. The meeting took place on Thursday 10 May 2024 as scheduled.[24]The claimant disputed the terms of the notes in certain respects, though accept that in some areas the notes were accurate.[25]The claimant confirmed that the induction was done with him by the Area Manager, Mr Chmielewski, and that he read “The terms of employment, the general terms of contract about holiday, grievance, absence, confidentiality, health and safety, loads of bits that I had to sign.”[26]Ms Strain said that during her investigation, it had been stated to her that the claimant was given all policy and handbooks to read by Mr Chmielewski, and that it was highlighted at that time the importance of reading these documents, and that if he had not understood anything he could have asked questions. The claimant replied “not really, in the day I was asked to read the papers and give the signatures, after that there was no discussion. He asked if I could start later in that day once he sent the papers over.”[27]The notes then record that Ms Strain asked the claimant if he was not made aware of the policies and handbook on the notice board, to which he replied “Yes but it’s not on a board but in a folder in the office.”[28]The claimant maintains that he did not say this, nor did he accept that he was made aware and knew that they were there, as was recorded thereafter.[29]It was noted that the claimant was shown his contract by Ms Strain, and told that it clearly stated that holiday must be used in the time specified and that he could not be paid in exchange for holiday due to the Working Time Regulations or carry holiday over. He agreed that it was his signature, and that he completely understood.[30]She also asked him to confirm that he understood that it was the employee’s duty to read the handbook, which he did, according to the notes, and then he confirmed that he understood that holidays could not be exchanged for payment or carried over, according to the handbook. He maintained that this was not explained on induction.[31]He insisted that the respondent should remind staff to take holidays, and that while there are reminders with regard to other policies, there are no reminders to take holidays.[32]Ms Strain pressed him as to the accessibility of the handbook, which was, she said, in a folder in the office, and stressed that it was his responsibility to be aware of all the policies. He was noted as saying that he completely understood.[33]The discussion on the claimant’s grievance about his holidays came to an end, and Ms Strain advised that she would not take a decision that day, but would review the evidence.[34]She then asked him if there was anything else he wished to add a that time. He was noted as replying: “There is a form signed under my name, this document has been signed before my employment starts under my name, I cannot share this document as I am taking legal proceedings.”[35]The claimant maintained in evidence before the Tribunal that he said that it was a “training form”, though Ms Strain disputed this.[36]She replied that this was not mentioned in his grievance, but that she was happy to investigate these allegations. The claimant responded: “I would not like to discuss as I maybe taking legal action as this is a criminal matter.” Ms Strain’s reply was that without the details she could not comment or investigate.[37]The claimant went on to ask Ms Strain if she could give him a reason why he should stay in the business, to which she replied that this was his decision and she could not tell him what to do.[38]He later returned to the holiday issue, and said that it was his opinion that to take holidays while on probation did not look good, and also that there was nothing to show him what days were available for him to take off.[39]After the meeting ended, the claimant submitted his resignation on the same date (16).[40]In the letter, he said: “Dear Mr Chmielewski, I am writing to formally resign from my position as a Delivery Driver at Pizza Hut, under the employment of Glenshire Brands. My last working day will be on June 8, 2024. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time working with Pizza Hut and appreciate the opportunities for growth and learning that the company has provided me during my tenure. Please consider this letter as the requisite notice period as per my contract terms. I am committed to ensuring a smooth transition during my remaining time with the company and am willing to assist in training a replacement or completing any outstanding tasks to the best of my ability. I would like to express my gratitude to you and the entire management team for your support and guidance throughout my time here. It has been a pleasure working with such a dedicated and professional team. I would appreciate if you could provide me with the necessary information regarding any exit procedures or documentation that I need to complete before my departure. Thank you once again for the opportunities and experiences I have gained while working at Pizza Hut. I wish the company continued success in the future.[41]In his evidence before the Tribunal, the claimant maintained that the reason why he resigned at that point was that he did not believe that anything would be done about the concerns which he had raised. He said that he did not include any reference to his concerns in the letter of resignation because he did not want to share those concerns with someone outwith the direct local management.[42]On 13 May 2024, Ms Strain wrote to the claimant (17) to advise that she was not upholding his grievance. She explained that he had confirmed that he had received and signed his contract, which clearly highlighted his holiday entitlement; that he had confirmed that he knew where the Company Handbook was, and noted that it was his responsibility to read this; and that he had confirmed that he had been given his terms of employment at the time of induction. She therefore believed that he had been given the correct information relating to holiday entitlement.[43]She advised him that he was entitled to appeal against this decision to Zibby Ghafoor within 5 days.[44]The claimant decided to appeal by email dated 13 May (18) and attached a letter of appeal (22).[45]He confirmed that while he was aware of the “use it or lose it” policy operated by the company in relation to holidays, he considered that there was a lack of transparent communication about it, which, he said, resulted in the deduction of 21 hours from his holiday entitlement without any prior reminders or notifications from the company.[46]He then wrote: “Furthermore, I must bring to your attention a significant concern regarding the unauthorized use of my signature. I have recently become aware that documents were signed on my behalf without my explicit consent, even preceding the signing of my employment contract. Documents date which has been signed without my authorization is dated 10/02/2024 my Agreement with Glenshire Brands has signed on 16/02/2024 which is raising substantial concerns regarding the security and integrity of my personal information.”[47]He went on to say that he had shared information with his trade union, GMB Scotland, and that the contents of his letter were strictly confidential and should not be shared without his express consent.[48]He requested a thorough investigation to be carried out. He asserted that Ms Strain had “ignored raised concerns about use of my signature which I believe is breach of duty.”[49]He also sent to Mr Ghafoor a document highlighting the falsified signature (185) and, for comparison purposes, a copy of his signature from a document acknowledging receipt of the Sickness Reporting Procedure dated 16 February 2024. He did sign that document himself.[50]An Appeal Hearing took place on 7 June 2024. Minutes of the meeting were taken by Eilidh Armour.[51]When asked what happened at his induction, the claimant said that “I was provided the contract, policies and agreements that come with it to sign. I was starting my first shift after 2 hours.”[52]He also said that he was told that the Handbook was in the office and available on request. He also accepted that the policies and guidelines with regard to holidays were in place, but no reminders to take holidays. Mr Ghafoor said that it was the claimant’s responsibility to be aware of the policies and procedures. The claimant replied that he was “completely aware” that he should have taken his holidays in time, but the company should also remind staff. He said he did not apply for holidays as he did not know how to do so.[53]The claimant then raised the issue of the fake signature on the fire drill. He confirmed that he did not know who had signed the sheet in his name, and wanted to find out.[54]The claimant’s evidence was that the notes of the meeting were not accurate, but Mr Ghafoor confirmed that they were, and I was prepared to accept his evidence on this point.[55]Mr Ghafoor replied on 12 June (31) to advise that he would review his case and carry out investigations. This followed a reminder from the claimant.[56]Mr Ghafoor wrote to the claimant on 17 June 2024 (33), to advise that the original decision in relation to the grievance about his holidays was upheld.[57]With regard to the issue of the claimant’s signature, Mr Ghafoor confirmed that the signature on the fire register was not the claimant’s. He went on: “This was not part of the original grievance and when asked for more information on the matter, you stated at the original Grievance hearing you were not able to share details as you sought out legal advice. However, based on the allegations made we did an investigation.”[58]He continued: “We take these allegations very seriously and the action we will be taking at this time is a review of the Fire Register instore and ensuring these are accurate. any finding will be treated in line with our policies and procedures.”[59]The decision was said to be final, with no further right of appeal available to the claimant.[60]Mr Ghafoor attended the Kirkcaldy store, obtained copies of the fire register and a plan of the layout of the store, and took a photograph of the growth board with information about policies on it.[61]A copy of an email dated 18 March 2024 from GC (his name is anonymised on the basis that he is no longer with the company and is not a witness in these proceedings, giving him no opportunity to defend himself) was produced (207). GC was a Brand Trainer for Pizza Hut, and his email intimated his resignation from the respondent’s employment because he had come to the realisation that he was not professionally where he should be for the role, having lost his passion and confidence.[62]Mr Ghafoor confirmed that GC was the manager who had been found to have falsified the signature of the claimant and others on the fire register.[63]The claimant did not receive formal training in how to respond to a fire drill, though he was shown the fire exits on induction.[64]Following the claimant’s resignation, he took up employment with Royal Mail, through the employment agency Blue Arrow, commencing on 20 June 2024 (35). He works 40 hours per week at £13.50 per hour. Submissions[65]Both parties made short submissions which were carefully considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision.
The Relevant Law
[66]Section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) provides: “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.”[67]A qualifying disclosure is defined in section 43B as “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 criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed;b. That a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject;c. That a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur;d. That the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered;e. That the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged; orf. That information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, or is likely to be deliberately concealed.”[68]Section 47B prohibits a worker who has made a protected disclosure from being subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker made a protected disclosure.[69]Helpful guidance is provided in the decision of Blackbay Ventures Ltd (t/a Chemistree) v Gahir [2014] IRLR 416 at paragraph 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 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 no of complaints providing always 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 s43B(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. 7. Where it is alleged that the claimant has suffered a detriment, short of dismissal it is necessary to identify the detriment in question and where relevant the date of the act or deliberate failure to act relied upon by the claimant. This is particularly important in the case of deliberate failures to act because unless the date of a deliberate failure to act can be ascertained by direct evidence the failure of the respondent to act is deemed to take place when the period expired within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the failed act. 8. The employment tribunal under the ‘old law; should then determine whether or not the claimant acted in good faith and under the ‘new’ law whether the disclosure was made in the public interest.”[70]In addition, the Tribunal had reference to the well-known decisions in Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380, Fecitt & Ors v NHS Manchester [2012] ICR 372 and Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] ICR 325 EAT.[71]In, Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436, at paragraphs 35 and 36, the Court of Appeal set out guidance on whether a particular statement should be regarded as a qualifying disclosure: “35. The question in each case in relation to section 43B(1) (as it stood prior to amendment in 2013) 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 sub-paragraphs (a) to (f). Grammatically, the word ‘information’ has to be read with the qualifying phrase ‘which tends to show [etc]’ (as, for example, in the present case, information which tends to show ‘that a person has failed or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject’). In order for a statement or disclosure to be a qualifying disclosure according to this language, 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 statements in the solicitors’ letter in Cavendish Munro did not meet that standard. 36. Whether an identified statement or disclosure in any particular case does meet that standard will be a matter for evaluative judgment by a tribunal in light of all the facts of the case. It is a question which is likely to be closely aligned with the other requirement set out in section 43B(1), namely that the worker making the disclosure should have the reasonable belief that the information he discloses does tend to show one of the listed matters. As explained by Underhill J in Chesterton Global at [8], this has both a subjective and an objective element. If the worker subjectively believes that the information he discloses does tend to show one of the listed matters and the statement or disclosure he makes has a sufficient factual content and specificity such that it is capable of tending to show that listed matter, it is likely that his belief will be a reasonable belief.” Discussion and Decision[72]Although there was no agreed list of issues in this case, the claims advanced by the claimant are: 1. Automatically unfair constructive dismissal on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure; 2. Unlawful detriment or detriments to which the claimant was subjected on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure; and 3. Unlawful deductions from wages (holiday pay).[73]I deal with these claims in turn. Automatically unfair constructive dismissal[74]In determining this claim, the Tribunal must consider whether or not the claimant made a protected disclosure, and if so, when, how and to whom; and then decide whether or not he resigned in response to a fundamental breach of contract committed by the respondent on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure.[75]The claimant set out in further particulars (154) the alleged protected disclosures upon which he relied.[76]Firstly, the claimant claimed that on 10 May 2024, he disclosed information verbally to Pauline Strain and Eilidh Armour, to the effect that a signature had been falsified on a document relating to fire safety training in his name. He maintained that this amounted to the breach of a legal obligation, health and safety and identity fraud.[77]I considered whether the claimant did in fact make a protected disclosure on that date.[78]It is important to note that the claimant’s assertion here is that he disclosed to Ms Strain and Ms Armour that his signature had been falsified on a document.[79]It is noted that in the minutes of the grievance meeting at which the claimant attended on 10 May 2024 with Ms Strain and Ms Armour, it is recorded that the claimant said (14): “There is a form signed under my name, this document has been signed before my employment starts under my name, I cannot share this document as I am taking legal proceedings.”[80]Despite being asked to provide further details, the claimant declined to do so on the basis that he believed that legal action would follow and he needed to save the information to himself until he had sought advice.[81]Did this amount to the disclosure of information, and if so, what was it? The difficulty for the Tribunal here is in discerning what the claimant’s rather opaque statement means, and why he was so reluctant to disclosure more detail about the matter to Ms Strain on 10 May. All he said was that there was a form signed “under my name”, before his employment had started, which may then be the subject of legal proceedings. He did not explicitly say that he believed that his signature had been forged. It may be discernible from what he said that he had a concern that his signature appeared on a form pre-dating his commencement in employment with the respondent, but in my view he did not set out clearly enough what he was saying.[82]There must be a disclosure of information. The claimant’s comment lacked information. He was, or must have been, aware of the information when he spoke on 10 May, that is, that a signature bearing to be his appeared on a document which was forged by someone before he had even started in employment with the respondent. It would have been a simple matter for him to have disclosed that on that day, but, for reasons known only to him, the claimant decided not to do.[83]It was notable that in his evidence, the claimant was very critical of Ms Strain for failing to investigate matters further after this comment, but in my judgment, that was very unfair to Ms Strain. It is entirely unclear what he expected her to do about this. He did not clearly set out what he was referring to, nor did he tell her what document he was referring to. There is no basis upon which it could be said that any individual had failed to comply with any legal obligation: he did not say that a manager had forged his signature, and it was not clear to the respondent that that was what he was saying.[84]The respondent’s submission on this point was that the claimant’s statement at the grievance meeting lacked the necessary content upon which it could be found to amount to a protected disclosure. I agree with that submission. At best, it appears to me to be a broad allegation, without any substance or clear content. The claimant himself seemed to consider himself justified to withhold any further detail from the respondent and as a result, in my judgment, the alleged disclosure did not amount to a protected disclosure at all.[85]The claimant also made reference in his further particulars to a legal obligation relating to health and safety, without defining what he meant by that. It may be that he meant that the respondent had failed in its health and safety obligations towards him by failing to carry out fire training, but he did not say that. What he said related broadly to his signature, and it cannot be inferred from what he said that he meant that he had not been trained at all.[86]Accordingly, it is my conclusion that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure in the grievance meeting of 10 May 2024.[87]Secondly, the claimant says that on 13 May 2024, he made a disclosure in writing to Mr Ghafoor and Ms Armour that a signature had been falsified on fire safety training stating that he had received the training when he had not.[88]This is a reference to the claimant’s letter seeking to appeal against the outcome of his grievance, dated 13 May 2024 (22).[89]In it, he alleged that there had been unauthorised use of his signature; that documents had been signed on his behalf, without his explicit consent, preceding the signing of his employment contract, the date of which was 10 February 2024. He complained about the security and integrity of his personal information. He requested Mr Ghafoor carry out a comprehensive investigation into the signature, and alleged that Ms Strain had ignored his concerns about this matter.[90]In this communication, the claimant provided more information and detail about the allegation which he was making. He identified a date upon which the document was signed in his name. He also spoke of the unauthorised use of his signature; while this was a slightly clumsy way of putting it – it was not his signature at all, but another person impersonating his – it is my view that it is discernible from this statement (repeated in his second email of that date (24)) that he was alleging that his signature had been falsified on the document dated 10 February 2024.[91]In my judgment, there is sufficient content in this communication to amount to a protected disclosure. The claimant was providing information about a signature on his form bearing to be his but which was not signed by him, and while he did not identify a person who was guilty of having forged his signature, it is clear that he was alleging that someone in the respondent’s organisation had written in his signature on the form.[92]Did this amount to a failure to comply with a legal obligation? In my judgment, it did. Plainly a manager who falsifies a signature on a fire training form both acts dishonestly and seeks to present information confirming that certain individuals have been provided with health and safety training when they have not.[93]Having established that this disclosure amounted to a protected disclosure, I then turned to considering whether the claimant’s resignation amounted to constructive unfair dismissal on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure.[94]It is necessary to consider the reason for the claimant’s resignation. The claimant’s evidence before the Tribunal differed from the terms of his letter of resignation (16) dated 10 May 2024.[95]In his letter of resignation, the claimant confirmed that he had thoroughly enjoyed his time working with Pizza Hut, and appreciated the opportunities for growth and learning with which the company had provided him. He gave the requisite notice to the respondent and confirmed his willingness to train a replacement or completing outstanding tasks to the best of his ability. He expressed his gratitude to the “entire management team” as well as Mr Chmielewski, for their support and guidance throughout his time there. He ended the letter by repeating his thanks.[96]There is nothing in the claimant’s resignation letter which suggests that he was resigning in response to an alleged breach of contract, nor that his resignation was provoked by any actions or omissions of the respondent following the submission of a protected disclosure. Indeed, the claimant, far from asserting that he was resigning in response to a fundamental breach of contract, made clear that he was grateful to the company for its support, and the opportunities afforded to him for growth and learning.[97]The terms of the claimant’s resignation letter flatly contradict his subsequent assertion before the Tribunal that he was forced to resign because of the respondent’s reaction to his protected disclosure.[98]In his evidence, however, the claimant stated that the breach of contract in response to which he resigned was that the respondent breached their own GDPR and Data Protection Act policies and guidelines, and also breached the claimant’s confidentiality, in the falsification of his signature; in addition, he suggested that Ms Strain had, in effect, told him that everything that had happened in relation to his holidays was his fault; and also that the respondent failed to provide him with fire safety training.[99]When asked why he had not said this in his letter of resignation, the claimant said that he was addressing his resignation to the area manager, not to local management, and that his complimentary remarks were directed at area and higher management, not at those with whom he worked closely in the Kirkcaldy store; and that he did not wish to raise confidential issues with that level of management.[100]In my judgment, the claimant’s evidence on this matter was simply not believable. His letter made reference to his gratitude to the entire management team of the respondent, not just higher management; and in any event, the letter expressed his views at the time, rather than his views before an Employment Tribunal considering his claims. I concluded that the claimant was not being candid in his evidence before me, and that the letter of resignation truly and accurately reflected his feelings at the time of his resignation. The claimant proved himself entirely capable of setting out his complaints in writing through the grievance process in a highly articulate and forthright manner. At the point when he resigned, he may have been discontented, but he did not convey that to the respondent.[101]While he has submitted a claim to the Tribunal in relation to his holiday entitlement, the claimant accepted in both grievance and grievance appeal hearing that he was aware of the “use it or lose it” policy, which was set out in his contract of employment, and that his complaint was simply that he should have been told or reminded to take his holiday. His acceptance that he knew what he was entitled to is evidence that he understood that he was not entitled to carry forward his holiday entitlement and that if he did not take holidays, he would lose them. As a result, it is not clear from his own evidence that he believed that he had any claim at all to his lost holiday entitlement.[102]As far as the issue of the signature is concerned, Mr Ghafoor had said to the claimant that he would investigate the matter, and did so, discovering that it was GC who had falsified the signature. The respondent acknowledged the wrongness of this act, and – though the claimant was not and should not have been aware of what action was or was not taken in relation to GC – and their evidence was that since GC had left their employment there was no further action which could be taken in relation to the matter.[103]Further, the claimant’s evidence was that he had started to look for alternative employment prior to his decision to resign, although he also suggested that he had not done so, as there would be no point in looking for work while in work already. I found the claimant’s evidence on this to be rather confusing and contradictory, and concluded that the claimant’s reason for resigning was that he had decided to look for work elsewhere.[104]In conclusion, it is my judgment that the claimant did not resign for the reasons he claimed before the Tribunal, but because he had decided to move on. He may have been generally dissatisfied with the response of the respondent to his grievance, and in particular it is clear that he was unhappy, whether justifiably or not, about the loss of his holiday entitlement, but there is no basis upon which it can be found that he resigned because of a breach of contract by the respondent following the making of the protected disclosure about his signature on 13 May 2024. He made no protected disclosure about his holiday entitlement.[105]In addition, it is my conclusion that the respondent did not commit a breach of the claimant’s contract in relation to either matter.[106]In any event, the protected disclosure was made on 13 May, and the claimant resigned on 10 May, 3 days before it was made. As a result, it is impossible that the claimant resigned because of having made a protected disclosure, having already resigned by the time he did so.[107]With regard to the claimant’s holiday entitlement, it is clear that the claimant’s contract of employment provided that if a holiday were not taken within the holiday year, it would be lost. The claimant was aware of that. He suggested that he did not know how to ask for holiday, but I was not prepared to believe that evidence; the claimant was perfectly capable of speaking to his store manager or even to the area manager in order to ask for time off, and in my judgment was aware of the simple process which could have been followed in order to secure his time off.[108]The respondent did not breach his contract of employment; they applied its terms and therefore complied with it.[109]Further, it is my judgment that the manner in which the respondent dealt with the claimant’s disclosure relating to the falsified signature did not amount to a breach of contract. They investigated the matter, and proceeded on the basis that the claimant’s assertion was correct, as they found it to be. They discovered through investigation that GC was the individual who had falsified the claimant’s, and others’, signatures on the fire safety form. Whatever action the respondent took in relation to GC – which appears to have been very limited as he had already left their employment – would not affect the claimant. In essence, the claimant’s complaint that his signature had been falsified was upheld.[110]Finally, the claimant asserted that there was another breach of contract, namely that he was not given fire safety training. It is not clear that that was the case. It is clear that he was given basic fire training on his induction, but not clear that he was given the more advanced training which was noted on the falsified form. Given that the claimant was only employed for a very short period of time, I cannot conclude that this was a failure, or such a failure as to justify the claimant’s resignation. In any event, I do not accept that if there was a failure, it arose because the claimant raised a protected disclosure. Mr Ghafoor was clear in stating that he was very concerned when he found the form to have been falsified and took immediate steps to retrain all staff. If the claimant were omitted from that training, it seems to me that either this was because he was already about to leave the respondent’s employment or that it was an oversight. There is no basis, on the evidence, for finding that the claimant was not trained because he had raised a protected disclosure.[111]Accordingly, it is my judgment that the claimant’s claim that he was constructively unfairly dismissed on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure must fail, and it is dismissed. Unlawful detriments[112]The claimant relies upon the detriments set out at 112 in the Preliminary Hearing Note, as having arisen on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure.[113]I have already found that the disclosure made on 13 May did amount to a protected disclosure, and accordingly it is the task of the Tribunal to determine whether or not the claimant was subjected to the claimed detriments, and if so, whether that was because he had made the protected disclosure.[114]The first detriment averred by the claimant is that on 3 May, his signature was falsified on a fire safety training document. In fact, the date upon which the signature was applied to the document was 10 February 2024, well before the making of the disclosure. Since the disclosure related to the falsification of his signature, which had happened before that, it cannot also amount to a detriment arising after the disclosure.[115]It is not in any event clear that this amounted to a detriment to the claimant. Clearly it was upsetting to the claimant to discover that his, and others’, signatures had been forged on a health and safety document, but it had little effect, and no detrimental effect upon him. The respondent was aware that he had not attended the fire safety drill on 10 February – it was impossible that he should have done so, since he did not start working until some days later – and no action was taken against him in relation to the matter.[116]It is my judgment that the falsification of the claimant’s signature was not a detriment visited upon him on the grounds that he had made a protected disclosure, primarily because it took place before he made the disclosure on 13 May.[117]The second detriment averred was that the respondent failed to take action to acknowledge or rectify the falsification of his signature.[118]This detriment, if it is one, took place after he made his disclosure on 13 May.[119]It appears to be an allegation that Mr Ghafoor failed to take steps to acknowledge or rectify the matter.[120]This is simply incorrect. Mr Ghafoor did acknowledge the matter when it was brought to his attention on 13 May, and advised the claimant in the course of the grievance appeal hearing (see the minutes (28)) that he was trying to find out more about this as he would take it very seriously. The reason he needed more information was that the claimant had provided Ms Strain with very little detail at the meeting of 10 May, and Mr Ghafoor wanted to be sure what it was the claimant was alleging.[121]Further, Mr Ghafoor did investigate the matter. He confirmed this in his outcome letter following the appeal hearing (34). He did not tell the claimant what further action he was taking, but it is clear he did act upon the allegations, and discovered that GC was the manager responsible for having falsely entered names and signatures on the fire safety drill record; he arranged for staff still employed by the respondent to be retrained and for records to be accurate in future. GC had left the employment of the respondent by that time, and accordingly he was unable to take any specific action against GC; however that was not a matter directly involving the claimant. It is clear that the respondent did take action upon the allegation and found that the claimant’s allegation was correct.[122]It is true that the respondent did not clearly state that they had upheld the claimant’s allegation, or tell the claimant precisely what action they were taking, other than to confirm that they would be reviewing the fire safety records to ensure their accuracy. However, they did rectify the matter by ensuring that the record was accurate, and carried out retraining of staff to ensure that all signatures on the record were correct.[123]Accordingly, it is my judgment that the claimant did not suffer the claimed detriment as a result of having raised the protected disclosure. Not only did the respondent acknowledge and rectify the false entries, they also did so because the claimant raised the disclosure. Far from subjecting him to a detriment because he did so, they took his disclosure seriously and corrected the falsification of the records, to the extent which they could.[124]Thirdly, although not explicit on the Note, it appears that the claimant was alleging that following the making of the disclosure, he was subjected to the detriment that he was not provided with fire training. In my judgment, the reason why he was not retrained – and it is my view that on induction he was given basic fire training, being shown the fire exits and gathering points, and told what to do in the event of a fire alarm being raised – was that he tendered his resignation.[125]I do not accept that the claimant was not trained at all in fire safety. Further it is my judgment that the reason why he was not retrained following the making of the protected disclosure was that he tendered his notice and intended to leave shortly, and not because he raised the protected disclosure. The reality is that the respondent took considerable steps to investigate and rectify the falsified register, and retrained all staff available to do it.[126]Fourthly, the claimant alleged that he resigned due to a repudiatory breach of contract arising out of the detriment. This is not a detriment claim but a complaint of unfair dismissal. I have addressed and determined that claim above.[127]Accordingly, it is my judgment that the claimant’s claim of detriments as a result of having made a protected disclosure fails, and must be dismissed. Unlawful Deductions from Wages[128]The claimant complained that he was unlawfully deprived of pay in relation to annual leave accrued but untaken as at 31 March 2024.[129]The claimant was entitled to 21 hours’ annual leave up to the end of the annual leave year, pro rated according to the portion of the leave year applicable to his length of service from start date until 31 March.[130]He did not take holiday during the period from start to 31 March 2024.[131]His contract of employment is clear on the point, and the claimant accepted this. Under Annual Holidays, it is provided that: “Your annual holiday entitlement is 28 days. Bank and Public Holidays are classed as a normal working day and you will be required to work these if they form part of your rota. Employees wishing to book a bank holiday off work should follow the normal holiday booking procedures. Holiday entitlement for part-time employees is calculated on a pro rata basis by reference to the days/hours worked per week. The holiday year runs from 1st April until 31st March. There is no provision to carry holidays forward nor for additional payment in lieu of entitlement not taken by the end of the holiday year. Your holiday will accrue pro rata on the first day of each month of that year. If upon leaving you have exceeded your accrued holiday entitlement, the excess may be deducted from any sums due to you from the Company.”[132]The section I have highlighted in bold makes clear and explicit that employees may not carry forward leave into the next holiday year, nor will there be any payment in lieu of untaken holiday by the end of the holiday year.[133]The respondent did not allow the claimant to carry forward his holiday entitlement; nor did they pay him for the 21 hours in lieu of his untaken leave. The claimant appears to accept that this is consistent with his contractual entitlement, but complains that he was not reminded of the need to take his holidays before the end of the leave year.[134]The respondent argues that the holiday pay sought is not “properly payable” under the contract of employment in terms of section 13(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In my judgment, this is correct. The claimant had an entitlement to paid annual leave under his contract of employment, which expired in light of the contractual provisions highlighted above at the end of the leave year.[135]The claimant was aware of the company’s “use it or lose it” policy, which was in fact a simple expression of the provision in the contract of employment.[136]The claimant’s payslips indicated his holiday entitlement on an ongoing basis. His protests that he did not know how to claim annual leave are not believable, in my judgment. It was open to him to ask his manager, Abid, in the store, how to take holidays following the “normal holiday procedures”. He had access to the Company Handbook in the office of the store, though since it was not produced to this Tribunal, no reliance may be placed upon its terms.[137]However, in my judgment, the claimant’s contract was clear and unambiguous in providing that it was necessary to take annual leave before the end of the leave year. The claimant did not dispute this before this Tribunal; his complaint was that nobody reminded him of his right to take annual leave. While this may cause him some irritation, it does not amount to a basis for a claim that he was unlawfully deprived of wages by the respondent. There is no basis for such a claim before me.[138]Accordingly, the claimant’s claim of unlawful deduction from wages fails, and is dismissed.