Collins v Club 24 Ltd t/a Ventura
Published on: 13/01/2012
Issues Covered:
Dismissal
Article Authors
The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background
This was an application under rule 3(10). The Claimant made a number of complaints including unfair dismissal, failure to make payment in respect of notice, deduction from wages and having been subjected to detriments on the ground that she made a public interest disclosure. The principal issue was whether there was a constructive Unfair Dismissal. The Tribunal rejected all the Claimant‟s complaints and she subsequently appealed.The Tribunal dismissed the allegation that detriments had been imposed on the Claimant for making a public interest disclosure, as the Tribunal held that there was no detriment. There was no allegation of breach of legal duty or commission of a criminal act. Whatever the Respondent did was not connected with any public interest disclosure by the Claimant, but simply because she refused to do what she had been properly instructed to do.An aspect of a PIDA claim is whether the Claimant acted in good faith. There is no dispute that she did. She was opposed to raising funds for the RSPCA via a helpline but she did not reasonably hold a belief that these activities were illegal or in breach of any legal duty. In those circumstances the claim must fail. Even if the Employment Tribunal were wrong, it 65held that there was no connection between such conduct as the Claimant alleged and a PIDA matter. The Court held that there was no basis upon which it could be said the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its conclusions. It decided the matter against the Claimant as one of causation. The various legs on which the case had to run were all analysed and dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. The main issue was the proper construction of the contract. Reasonable instructions had been given to the Claimant which she disobeyed. She did not undergo the training. She did not suffer detriment as a result of what she said was a protected disclosure, but in any event the disclosure did not meet the contours of Part IVA, or s.103A, of the Act. She did not suffer any detriment and was not constructively dismissed. There was no connection with her complaints about what she was required to do as part of her contract. There was no error.http://bit.ly/wmmDzS
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Already a subscriber?
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
Disclaimer
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.
This article is correct at 13/01/2012
Recent Case Law
Duployen v Whyte & Mackay Ltd [2025]
14/01/2025
McCahon v Chief Constable of the PSNI [2024]
16/12/2024
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you
Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users.
Learn more →
