RFB's Employment Team heeft met succes opgetreden namens een heftruckchauffeur die door zijn werkgever werd geschorst en vervolgens ontslagen omdat hij klokkenluider was over het gevaarlijk laden van pallets in een magazijn.
De feiten
The Claimant was operating a forklift truck to move a pallet when it fell at a height of 9m. This was because it was dangerously loaded with packages that were overhanging the pallet and kept together with cellophane. The packages can weigh around 500kg, so the fallen pallet could have had fatal consequences for workers on the warehouse floor below. The Claimant immediately reported the incident to one of his supervisors, but no further action was taken, nor was the incident documented. A few days later, the Claimant observed a further overloaded pallet which he again reported to his supervisor, but he was told to continue working.
When the Claimant saw another overloaded pallet, he retrieved his mobile phone from his locker and used it to photograph the danger. He subsequently showed these photos to the Health and Safety Officer.
Later that day the Claimant was suspended. The employer alleged this was for using his mobile in the warehouse during work hours in breach of their rules. The Claimant was called a few days later and he was dismissed during the call, without following any of the employer’s contractual disciplinary procedures.
De beslissing van het Tribunaal
The Tribunal found that the Claimant’s reporting of the dangers presented by overloaded pallets amounted to qualifying disclosures. EJ Havard stated that “it must be in the public interest if the aim of the disclosure was [to] ensure the health and safety of the workforce”. Er werd geoordeeld dat de eiser, door de pallets te fotograferen, de werkgever op redelijke wijze op de hoogte had gebracht van zijn bezorgdheid. Zijn acties waren gepast om zichzelf en andere werknemers te beschermen.
Het tribunaal was niet overtuigd door de stelling van de werkgever dat het ontslag verband hield met het onjuiste gebruik van de mobiele telefoon door de eiser. Het tribunaal besloot dat het schorsen van de eiser gelijk stond aan een benadeling. Het tribunaal concludeerde ook dat de reden voor het ontslag van de eiser verband hield met het feit dat hij gezondheids- en veiligheidsproblemen had gemeld.
The Tribunal further found that the Claimant was entitled to be paid for the period of his suspension, and that the failure of the Respondent to pay him during that period was an unlawful deduction from wages. Finally, the Claimant’s dismissal amounted to a breach of contract, entitling him to 4 weeks’ notice pay in accordance with his contract.
De prijs
Het tribunaal kende de eiser een schadevergoeding toe van in totaal £15.019,46, inclusief een bedrag van £3000 voor verzwaarde schade omdat de werkgever zich beledigend had gedragen.
If you have an enquiry relating to the law on whistleblowing, health and safety or unfair dismissal, please contact de Werkgelegenheid Team op employmentteam@rfblegal.co.uk
Gepubliceerd 4 juli 2022
