Mr C Preen v Coolink Ltd and Mr R Mullins: 1403451/2020
| Judgment Date | 12 November 2021 |
| Date | 12 November 2021 |
| Published date | 06 December 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case number: 1403451/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Chris Preen
First Respondent: Coolink Limited
Second Respondent: Mr Richard Mullins
Heard at: Bristol On: 8-10 November 2021
Before: Employment Judge Oliver
M s J LeVaillant
M r E Beese
Representation
Claimant: Mr S Wyeth, counsel
Respondent: Ms L Taylor, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claims for wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages and
failure to pay holiday pay are dismissed upon withdrawal.
2. The claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed by the first respondent
for a h ealth and safety reaso n under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment
Rights Act 1996.
3. The remaining claims fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
1. This is a claim for automatic unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons,
automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, being subjected t o a detriment for
raising health and safety issues, being subjected to a detriment for
whistleblowing, wrongful dismissa l, unauthorised deduction from wages, and
accrued but unpaid holiday pay.
Case number: 1403451/2020
2. The hearing was conducted by the parties attending in by video conference
(CVP). It was held in public with the Tribunal sitting in open court in accordance
with the Employment Tribunal Rules. It was conducted in that manner because
the parties had consented to such a hearing and it was in accordance with rule
46, the Presidential Guidance on remote hearings and open just ice and the
overriding objective to do so.
Issues
3. The claimant’s representative confirmed that he was no longer pursuing
claims for wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deduction from wages or accrued but
unpaid holiday pay, and these claims are dismissed upon withdrawal.
4. There was a case management hearing on 16 March 2021 conducted by EJ
Rayner. This fixed a list of issues, which were discussed with the parties at the
start of the hearing. The remaining issues were agreed as follows:
1. Health and Safety Dismissal (Employment Rights Act 1996 s100)
1.1 Was the principal reason for dismissal one of the reasons set out
in sections 100(1) c, d or e ERA 1996 ? The claimant asserts that
the reason or principal reason for his dismissal was:
1.1.1 That being an employee at a pla ce where there was no
such representative or safety committee or he brought to
his employer’s attention by reasonable means,
circumstances connected with his work which he
reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to
health and safety (100(1)(c) ERA)
1.1.2 In circumstances of danger which the employee
reasonably believed to be serious a nd imminent and which
he could not reasonably have been expected to avert he
(while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place
of work or any dangerous part of his place of work
(100(1)(d) ERA), or
1.1.3 In circumstances of danger which the employee
reasonably believed to be serious and imminent he took or
proposed to take appropriate steps to protect himself or
other persons from the danger (s100(1)(e) ERA).
1.2 The claimant identifies the following circumstances of danger:
1.2.1 The Coronavirus pandemic;
1.2.2 The risk of contra cting the virus, or of p assing the virus on
to others if he attended his place of work, including travel
to and from work, and including attendance at any other
sites of work including those of clients and customers.
To continue reading
Request your trial