Mr Kevin Colhoun v Veolia ES (UK) Ltd: 4103053/2019
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2020 |
| Citation | 4103053/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 18 February 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case Number: 4103053/2019
Held at Glasgow on 13 (reading day), 14, 15 and 16 January 2020
10
Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn
Tribunal Member: Mr G Noble
Tribunal Member: Mr J Burnett
15
Mr Kevin Colhoun Claimant
Represented by:
Mr A Khan -
Solicitor
20
Veolia ES (UK) Limited Respondent
Represented by:
Mr P Grant-Hutchison -
25
Advocate
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunals is that the claimant’s claims
30
of constructive unfair dismissal, automatically unfair constructive dismissal and
unlawful deduction from wages do not succeed and are dismissed.
REASONS
1. This case came before us for a final hearing on both liability and remedy. Mr
Khan appeared for the claimant and Mr Grant-Hutchison appeared for the
35
respondent.
S/4103053/2019 Page 2
Claims
2. The claimant had provided further and better particulars of his claims (pages
58-59 of the joint bundle of documents) including a useful chronology of
events (pages 60-66). In this the claims were expressed as follows –
Constructive unfair dismissal
5
The claimant alleges that the respondent was in repudiatory breach of
contract, namely a breach of the implied terms of trust and confidence that
must exist between an employer and employee in relation to the following -
(a) alleged delay in managing the claimant’s absence and providing
support.
10
(b) failing to uphold all of the claimant’s grievances.
(c) applying the grievance procedure rather than the whistleblowing
procedure.
(d) failing to apply said procedure fairly.
The claimant ultimately resigned because of the failure of the respondent to
15
uphold his grievance the outcome of which was dated 26 November 2018.
Whistleblowing
The disclosure (whistleblowing) was raised on 28 August 2017 at 17.57. This
was done by way of email sent to Mr R Crusher, Regional Director, North who
then sent it to Mr G Holliday, General Manager. The claimant alleges that
20
section 43B(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) has been
breached. This is with specific reference to point no 6 in the said email which
states inter alia the following –
“Arla: Manpower is still an issue but also the lack of progress on site with
issues such as HV, LV and L8 and the recent LRQA audit….”
25
S/4103053/2019 Page 3
The detriment suffered in consequence of the whistleblowing was the loss of
the claimant’s job. No other detriment is alleged.
Unlawful deduction of wages
This claim relates to unpaid holiday pay amounting to £4899.77. This
outstanding holiday pay relates to the period 1 January to 1 December 2018.
5
In addition 2 days annual leave are claimed which were outstanding from
2017. These sums should have been paid no later than 28 January 2019.
The claimant initially also intimated a disability discrimination claim but this
was subsequently withdrawn.
Procedural history
10
3. The claimant had submitted two claims – the present one and a claim against
Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Ltd (case no 4103052/2019). Once it
was agreed that the claimant’s employer had been the respondent, the other
claim was withdrawn but not dismissed because of a concern about res
judicata. A separate Judgment has now been issued dismissing the claims in
15
case no 4103052/2019.
4. Preliminary hearings took place on 24 July 2019 (Employment Judge Mellish),
on 7 October 2019 (Employment Judge Whitcombe) and on 18 December
(Employment Judge McFatridge).
Evidence
20
5. We heard evidence from the claimant. For the respondent we heard evidence
from Mr I Roberts, General Manager – Public and Commercial, and from Mr I
Williams, Regional Director, Water and Industrial Customers. Mr Roberts had
dealt with the claimant’s grievance and Mr W illiams had dealt with his
grievance appeal. The evidence in chief of each witness was contained in
25
witness statements which were taken as read.
To continue reading
Request your trial