Delivery Company Whistleblower ‘Pushed to Quit’ Due to Lack of Health Risk Investigation Awarded £46,000

In Mr S Potts v Urb-it UK Ltd, a delivery company courier was unfairly dismissed after making multiple protected disclosures. This was in relation to potential health and safety risks within the delivery company’s electric bike charging hubs. The tribunal ruled in favour of the courier as he had the benefit of whistleblower protections.

If you believe that you have been unfairly dismissed, Redmans Solicitors would be pleased to provide help and advice. Arrange an initial consultation with one of our dedicated employment law experts today to find out whether you may be able to bring a claim against your former employer.

To get started, simply:

The Facts of Mr S Potts v Urb-It UK Ltd

Delivery Company’s Charging Hubs were a Potential Fire Hazard

Urb-It UK Ltd (the respondent) is a delivery company conducting urban deliveries via electric bike. Mr S Potts (the claimant) commenced his employment with the respondent on 14 January 2021. His role was that of senior manager in the UK.

The respondent charged its electric bikes in various charging hubs around London. One such was located in a railway arch on Centaur Street.  This set-up comprised multiple batteries charging via extension leads connected to three-pin power sockets. Plus, the structure of the charging hub was long and narrow, and the staff kitchen and toilets were located at the back. As such, the charging set-up was situated between these facilities and the only exit.

On 17 August 2022, a fire broke out at a nearby railway arch, which caused the claimant concern. He felt that the set-up in the Centaur Street charging hub was a fire hazard and thus a risk to health and safety. He discussed his concerns with his colleagues and investigated safe storage solutions for charging batteries.

Claimant Raises Concerns About Delivery Company’s Charging Hubs

On 15 September 2022, the claimant first raised his concerns with Mr Kviblad (one of the respondent’s directors) during a video call. He told Mr Kviblad that the set-up in the charging hub was endangering health and safety and that the respondent must take action. He also suggested the use of firesafe boxes for the batteries as a potential solution.

In a further call with Mr Kviblad on 28 September, the claimant was told that the firesafe boxes could not be sourced due to funding constraints. The claimant repeated his concerns and the possibility of the delivery company directors being criminally prosecuted for manslaughter in such circumstances. However, the claimant was told that the directors lived in Sweden and there was no extradition treaty between the UK and Sweden.

The claimant raised his concerns twice more with Mr Kviblad, on 7 and 20 October 2022. Mr Kviblad’s responses were the same on each occasion. He told the claimant that the claimant would face legal issues but that he (Mr Kviblad) would not due to the lack of an extradition treaty between the UK and Sweden.

Lack of Investigation by Delivery Company Pushes Claimant to Resign

On 26 October 2022, the claimant once more raised his concerns about health and safety risks at the charging hubs with Mr Kviblad. The claimant then verbally resigned during that call, telling Mr Kviblad that he had “no other option.” He provided nine months’ notice on the basis that three months was too short a time to find a replacement.

Over the subsequent month, the claimant raised his concerns about health and safety with the respondent’s chairperson, Mr Warstedt. He sent an initial email, attended a call on 31 October, then followed up with multiple further emails. The claimant then raised a grievance regarding his concerns and the respondent’s lack of response on 30 November 2022.

During November 2022, the claimant also sent an email to Mr Kviblad confirming his resignation. The email stated that this was “based on [his] recent concerns that [he] had had and shared with [the respondent]”. The respondent accepted the claimant’s resignation but invoked his contractual notice period of three months.

The claimant subsequently brought claims against the respondent in the Employment Tribunal. These were for UK unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages for the additional length of notice he originally provided.

The Employment Tribunal’s Ruling in Mr S Potts v Urb-It UK Ltd

The claim against the delivery company was heard at London Central Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge Emery. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The tribunal considered the facts of the case and the relevant law relating to whistleblowers and protected disclosures.

In submissions by the respondent, the respondent contested that the claimant’s dismissal had been due to him being a whistleblower. Instead, the respondent asserted that this had been as a result of performance issues of the claimant. The respondent flatly denied that the claimant had raised any concerns regarding health and safety, which the tribunal found unconvincing.

UK Protected Disclosures: What is a Qualifying Disclosure?

The Employment Rights Act 1996 classifies certain types of disclosure as “qualified disclosures”. Any worker making a qualified disclosure is provided whistleblower protection, including from being dismissed as a consequence. Such “qualifying disclosures” are listed in sections 43A to 43H of the Employment Rights Act.

Under section 43B, “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… that the health and safety of any individual has been, is being, or is likely to be endangered” constitutes a qualifying disclosure. Under section 43C, such a disclosure will be qualifying if it is made to the worker’s employer.

Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act states that an employee’s dismissal will be unfair if the principal reason for the dismissal was that the employee made a protected disclosure. As such, dismissal of a whistleblower will be an unlawful dismissal in the UK.

Further, under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act, such dismissal will be an unfair dismissal if the principal reason for it was because the employee brought to his employer’s attention “circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health and safety.” Again, such would constitute an unlawful dismissal in the UK.

The Tribunal’s Findings Regarding the Delivery Company

The tribunal found that the claimant’s disclosures to the respondent fell into this category of qualifying disclosure. The fact that the electric bike charging hub constituted a potential fire risk could indicate that the health and safety of multiple individuals was being endangered. Moreover, the tribunal found, the claimant reasonably believed that he was making these disclosures in the public interest.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant brought his concerns to the respondent’s attention on five separate occasions. These concerns related to the claimant’s work, and he did reasonably believe that the circumstances in question “were harmful or potentially harmful to health and safety.”

The tribunal held that the respondent’s dismissive responses to the claimant’s concerns constituted a repudiatory breach of contract. As such, the claimant’s resignation on 26 October 2022 constituted UK constructive dismissal. Given the fulfilment of the criteria under sections 43B and 43C of the Employment Rights Act, the claimant was entitled to whistleblower protections.

In addition, the application of section 100 of the Employment Rights Act made this UK constructive dismissal unfair. The claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed as it was not for the claimant to choose a notice period.

If you believe that you have been unfairly dismissed, you may be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal against your former employer. The employment law specialists at Redmans Solicitors have extensive experience in the field of unfair dismissal. Contact us today to arrange an initial consultation and we will be pleased to listen to the details of your circumstances and advise you on your options.

To begin, you can either: