Mr David Buchanan v Student Loans Company Ltd: S/4104765/2017
| Judgment Date | 07 September 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
| Date | 07 September 2018 |
| Citation | S/4104765/2017 |
| Published date | 07 December 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: S/4104765/2017
Held in Glasgow on 30 April 2018, and
1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 16 May 2018 (Final Hearing); and
6 July 2018 (Members’ Meeting)
10
Employment Judge: Ian McPherson
Members: Robert McPherson
Andrew Ross
Mr David Buchanan Claimant
15
Represented by:-
Mr Tony McGrade –
Solicitor
20
Student Loans Company Limited Respondents
Represented by:-
Ms Kerry Norval –
Solicitor
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
30
(1) Having heard parties’ representatives on the first day of the Final Hearing, on
30 April 2018, in respect of the respondents’ opposed application, made orally
at that Hearing, for leave of the Tribunal to be allowed to amend the ET3
response form previously lodged on behalf of the respondents, the Tribunal
35
refused that application, for the reasons then given orally by the Judge, on
S/4104765/2017 Page 2
behalf of the Tribunal, as reproduced below at paragraph 31 of the following
Reasons for this Judgment of the Tribunal; and
(2) Further, having considered the evidence led at the Final Hearing, and the
closing submissions made to the Tribunal by both parties’ representatives,
5
and after private deliberation by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has decided as
follows :-
(a) None of the 3 communications relied upon by the claimant as part of
his claim against the respondents are qualifying protected disclosures
10
made by the claimant to the respondents in terms of Section 43B of
the Employment Rights Act 1996.
(b) Further, and in any event, the detriment claim, under Section 47B of
the Employment Rights Act 1996, insofar as based on the first
15
three alleged detriments relied upon by the claimant, is time-
barred, and accordingly outwith the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for that
reason, having been brought outwith the statutory time limit set out in
Section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no
argument having been presented to the Tribunal, on behalf of the
20
claimant, that it was not reasonably practicable for a claim based on
those alleged detriments to be presented in time, or that it was
presented within a further reasonable time.
(c) The claimant was not subjected to any detriment by the respondents,
25
as alleged or at all, and, in particular, he was not subjected to any
detriment on the grounds that he had made a qualifying protected
disclosure. Accordingly, his complaint against the respondents, under
Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, of detriment for
having made such a disclosure fails, and that complaint is
30
dismissed by the Tribunal as not well-founded.
(d) The claimant resigned from the employment of the respondents, and
he was not dismissed by them, either expressly, or constructively
S/4104765/2017 Page 3
under Section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Accordingly, his complaint of unfair constructive dismissal by the
respondents, contrary to Sections 94 and 98 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996, fails, and that complaint too is dismissed by the
Tribunal as not well-founded.
5
(e) Further, the claimant was not dismissed by the respondent expressly
or constructively, on the grounds that he had made a qualifying
protected disclosure. Accordingly, his complaint against the
respondents, under Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act
10
1996, of automatically unfair dismissal for having made such a
disclosure fails, and that complaint too is dismissed by the Tribunal as
not well-founded.
(f) In all these circumstances, the claimant’s complaints against the
15
respondents are dismissed in their entirety. The claimant is not
entitled to any compensation from the respondents, as sought in his
Schedule of Loss provided to the Tribunal, as alleged, or at all.
20
REASONS
Introduction
25
1. This case called before us as a full Tribunal on Monday, 30 April 2018, for an
11 day Final Hearing, on certain assigned dates between that date and 16
May 2018, for full disposal, including remedy, if appropriate, all as previously
intimated to parties’ representatives by the Tribunal by Notice of Final Hearing
dated 1 February 2018.
30
2. As previously agreed with parties’ representatives, 10 days were listed for
hearing evidence, and the eleventh day for closing submissions from both
parties’ representatives. In the event, two days within that original allocated
To continue reading
Request your trial