Jason Braier Profile picture
Employment law barrister at @42BR_employment. Dad to 2 amazing children. Love a good #ukemplaw thread. All views my own, etc etc etc.

Apr 29, 2021, 8 tweets

1/ Following a judgment on health & safety dismissals and a judgment on separability, the President's decision in Sinclair v Trackwork combines the 2 - a decision on separability in a health & safety dismissal context. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/608983d3…

#ukemplaw

2/ S was a track maintenance supervisor, required to implement a safe system of work procedure. He was given a mandate to implement a Network Rail safety system, NR019. Trackworks didn't tell S's colleagues he'd been given this mandate.

3/ C implemented the safety system diligently, which caused friction & caused colleagues to raise concerns with management. Due to the upset & friction Trackworks decided to dismiss S. S claimed this was automatically unfair under ERA s.100(1).

4/ The ET found the dismissal wasn't because S was carrying out health & safety activities but because of the upset his approach to implementing the safety system had caused. It said it made this finding with a 'heavy heart'!

5/ The EAT allowed S's appeal. 1st, it looked at the test under s.100(1)(a), holding 2 questions needed to be asked: (i) are the criteria in the section met as a matter of fact; (ii) if yes, was the sole or principal reason for the dismissal the carrying out of those activities.

6/ In considering the separability case law, the EAT looked particularly at Goodwin v Cabletel, in which that issue was considered in a health & safety activity context. The EAT drew the following principles from that case from which separability could occur, but rarely:

7/ In S's case, the EAT found that the high threshold for separability in a health & safety case hadn't been met. S was diligently carrying out his H&S task. The upset resulted from Trackworks' mismanagement of the situation & of everyone's expectations not from any malice by S.

8/ Part of the mischief necessitating the s.100 protection is that implementing H&S rules often will be resisted or regarded as unwelcome. The protection would be undermined if that upset could be relied on as a reason to dismiss.

Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.

A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.

Keep scrolling