Employee dismissed for whistleblowing

In T Rajtmar v Uneek Clothing Company Ltd , a Forklift Truck Driver was suspended and then dismissed by his employer Uneek Clothing for whistleblowing about dangerous loading of pallets in a warehouse.

The Facts

Mr Raitmar was operating a forklift truck to move a pallet when it fell from 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 falling pallet could have been fatal for his colleagues on the warehouse floor below. He immediately reported the incident to one of his supervisors, but no further action was taken, nor was the incident documented. A few days later, Mr Raitmar saw another overloaded pallet which he again reported to his supervisor, but he was told to continue working. After this incident, Mr Raitmar saw another overloaded pallet. He got his mobile phone from his locker and took a picture of the hazard which he showed to the Health and Safety Officer.

Later that day Mr Raitmar was suspended for using his mobile in the warehouse during work hours in breach of policy. A few days later he received a phone call from work during which he was dismissed. Uneek Clothing did not follow any of its contractual disciplinary procedures.

In the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that Mr Raitmar’s reporting of the dangers presented by overloaded pallets were qualifying disclosures. The Employment Judge said his disclosure was in the public interest because he wanted to ensure the health and safety of the workforce. In photographing the pallets, Mr Raitmar’s brought his concerns to the employer by reasonable means. His actions were appropriate in order to protect himself and other workers.

The ET was not convinced that Mr Raitmar was dismissed because of using his mobile phone and said that the real reason was because he whistleblew about health and safety concerns.  In addition, suspending him amounted to a detriment. The employer did not pay Mr Raitmar during his suspension. The ET said he was entitled to be paid for the period of his suspension, and that the failure of the employer to pay him during that period was an unlawful deduction from wages. His dismissal was also a breach of contract, entitling him to 4 weeks' notice pay under his employment contract.

The Tribunal awarded Mr Raitmar £15,019.46 compensation, which included £3000 for aggravated damages because Uneek Clothing behaved in an insulting manner.