Negotiation Strategy And Claims

Yes, England

Can you rewrite this

Matthew

Please rewrite the following email to my solicitor for her opinion: ****

Maintain consistency and use respondent instead of appellant

How many whistleblowing disclosures would be needed to prove Automatic Unfair Constructive Dismissal and Direct Age Discrimination and Less favourable treatment in an employment tribunal

Based on my witness statement: * / * Case no: */* IN THE TRIBUNALS BETWEEN: - Mr M Aitken Claimant - and - Project Better Energy Limited Respondent WITNESS STATEMENT OF Matthew Aitken (The claimant) *. I, Mr Matthew Aitken (the Claimant), in my role as Health & Safety Advisor at Project Better Energy Limited (the Respondent), hereby submit this witness statement to outline the series of events that have significantly impacted my professional life and well-being. *. These events, which I believe to be both Automatic Unfair Constructive Dismissal, Whistleblowing Protected Disclosures, Detriments from making those Qualifying Disclosures, Direct Age Discrimination & Less Favourable treatment, are detailed below, following the chronology as agreed by both parties in the case management orders agreed list of issues. Protected Disclosures: *. On multiple occasions between * March * and * June *, I made * protected disclosures regarding safety concerns, including but not limited to the * / * absence of remedial actions following an accident, non-compliance with the Work at Height Regulations, concerns over unsafe and a lack of scaffolding , and electrical works completed by unqualified electricians as detailed in the hearing bundle [p123]. *. The Respondent has a Whistleblowing Policy, and going from the responses or lack thereof it is evidence that I had invoked their internal procedures for protected disclosures, had raised them to the appropriate Line Management and/or Senior Stakeholders as required. The companies lack of and/or limited response is evidence of the companies failure to follow their own internal procedures as detailed in the hearing bundle [p250]. *. On * March *; I raised concerns via a telephone call and an email to Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager), Ben Tickner (Installations Manager), and Alan Graham (Head of Operations) about non-compliance with Work at Height Regulations following an accident where a subcontractor fell from a roof as detailed in the hearing bundle [p270-MA01], [p271], [p272-*] *. This was a serious safety issue that I believed needed immediate attention to prevent future accidents. The response I received was minimal, and there seemed to be no immediate action taken to address the concerns I raised, leaving me feeling ignored and concerned for the safety of employees, subcontractors and customers. *. On * March ***: I raised in a conversation and follow-up emails to Alan Graham and Matthew Weightman concerning non-compliance with the Work at Height Regulations, specifically pointing out the absence of scaffolding, suitable supervision, and first-aid arrangements. Despite my efforts to highlight these safety critical issues after the subcontractors roof fall accident & investigation, the lack of substantive response and/or action taken in response to these disclosures was disheartening. Even the second man onsite who witnessed the accident stated in his statement that “possibly edge protection or the scaffold to have continued around” which further * / * validates my protected disclosure, as detailed in the hearing bundle [p284], [p276], [p277-*], [p279-*], [p282-*]. *. It felt as though my concerns were not being taken seriously, which was alarming given the potential risks of recurrence and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Intervention involved. *. On * March *: I informed Ben Tickner and Matthew Weightman orally and followed up via WhatsApp messages about the risk of HSE intervention and failures in respect of RIDDOR notification. Additionally, I had a separate conversation with Matthew Weightman concerning possible cover-ups of breaches of health and safety legislation. I said “being a bit of a pessimist here but are we confident the scaffolders made the alterations?” Matthew Weightman replied “no going off Bens comment” as detailed in the hearing bundle [p286], [p289-*]. *. The apparent disregard for these issues was troubling. The lack of engagement on these matters made me feel as though the company was not committed to maintaining a safe working environment. *. On * March *: I had conversations with Ben Tickner and Nigel Culbert (Scaffolding Manager), followed by an email to Alan Graham, Matthew Weightman, Ben Tickner, and Nigel Culbert concerning unsafe scaffolding, and had followed this up in emails due to having received a Local Authority letter from Cumbria City Council following the companies scaffolding subcontractor having failed to apply for a Pavement Permit (License) “we have really got to tighten the reigns on our scaffolding subcontractors as their acts/omissions puts PSUK in the line of fire as the company who engaged those subcontractors.” I had explained that the company is liable under Vicarious Liability as the Principal Contractor under CDM Regulations “we would fall short on our duties under CDM ref our diligence & monitoring of subcontractors” as detailed in the hearing bundle [p300-*]. * / * *. This disclosure was part of my ongoing attempts to ensure compliance with safety regulations and to prevent potential accidents. *. On * April *: Following a directive from Alan Graham to amend the method statement and risk assessment relating to work at height, I expressed concerns via WhatsApp about the CEO's instruction that scaffolding edge protection was not required as detailed in the hearing bundle [p330]. [p335-*] *. I felt it was my duty to highlight the potential safety risks and the need for documented justification for not using scaffolding in all instances. The lack of acknowledgment of these concerns made me feel that the company was not taking its health and safety obligations seriously, which was deeply concerning as this was a direct result following the Directors Health & Safety Meeting. *. On * May *: I followed up on the previous disclosure with an email to Alan Graham and Matthew Weightman, emphasising the importance of complying with the Work at Height Regulations hierarchy of risk control. I reported that the Director’s Meeting Minutes had agreed actions that were not compliant, and I suggested additional controls as detailed in the hearing bundle [p332-*], [*-*] *. The absence of a substantive response left me feeling that my professional expertise and concerns for safety were being disregarded. *. On * May *: I What’s App messages to Alan Graham and Matthew Weightman and emails to Ben Tickner, Alan Graham and Matthew Weightman and I reported jobs that had been completed without any scaffolding provision. “what’s gone on with this full bungalow reinstall? When we spoke yesterday I was led to believe it was going to be done today due to no one turning up yesterday.” And said “I made * / * all aware that there was no scaffolding in place and said it needed it before the roof install” as detailed in the hearing bundle [*] *. This was just another instance of me raising legitimate Heath and safety hazards, and them being completely disregarded. I often started to wonder why the company had employed a full time designated Health & Safety Advisor. *. On * June *: In a conversation with Ben Tickner, I raised concerns about an unqualified employee carrying out electrical installations as detailed in the hearing bundle [p38]. Despite the company's claim that the work did not require a qualified electrician, and Ben Tickner’s dismissive comment that we have to have some law breaking to get the job done only fuelled my desire to ensure that all work was legally compliant and safe as detailed in the hearing bundle (p340-* *. The company's lack of response to my formal email left me feeling unsupported and that my efforts to maintain safety standards were not valued. *. On * June *: I sent an email to Alan Graham and Matthew Weightman following a phone call from Mr. Aaron Jackson, who reported non-compliance with Local Authority regulations, specifically not notifying the Distribution Network Operator when installing Solar PV systems with export exceeding *.6kw as detailed in the hearing bundle [p349-*]. *. My genuine belief that the company was failing to comply with its legal obligations and the possibility of deliberate concealment of this information was verified by Alan Graham when later that week he asked me what I knew about export of solar, after I answered he went on to explain that he knows the company doesn’t always notify them prior to installations but, said that was out of his hands as the CEO takes the control on that from the company. * / * *. This response made me feel that my concerns were being dismissed and that the company was not committed to addressing potential legal and safety violations. The company would get many customer calls about grid loss faults and it was my belief from discussing the issue with on of the companies manufacturing suppliers that that fault can occur when installers do not pre-notify the distributor, as they would send an engineer to check the local substation to ensure it has the hardware for the extra capacity. *. On * June *: I had a conversation with Jamie Ratcliffe (Project Manager) and Ben Tickner in the open office concerning dangerous scaffolding, this was after receiving a phone call from a customer who reported to me dangerous scaffolding, I gathered relevant details from him, and requested a photo via email which he sent later than afternoon as detailed in the hearing bundle [p356-*]. *. The conversation had me anxious and worrying as both managers were laughing, and trivialising the safety issue, and Janie was ready to finish for his paternity leave, and left shortly after. I asked Ben Tickner if Jamie Ratcliffe had spoken to the customer or contacted the scaffolding Subcontractors, Ben Tickner just sat there, shrugged his shoulders and said that’s not my job. *. On * June *: I followed up with an email to Jamie Ratcliffe, Ben Tickner, Alan Graham, Simon Peat (CEO), Matthew Weightman, and Nigel Culbert about the same issue to further substantiate my protected disclosure as detailed in the hearing bundle [p358]. *. On * June *: I had seen that Jamie Ratcliffe had responded to my email sent previous evening, albeit another limited response. I replied to this with BenT, Alan Graham, Simon Peat, Matthew Weightman and Nigel Culbert included and was considered as the final straw incident in terms of the last protected disclosure prior to being signed of as not fit for work, I was absent from week commencing * June * as detailed in the hearing bundle [p361-*]. * / * *. This situation highlighted a significant communication and accountability issue within the company, making me feel even more isolated in my efforts to address safety concerns, and before finishing work for the day, I needed to follow up again and notify the scaffolding subcontractors myself because I had received no reply from anyone in the company. I told them exactly what was wrong, and why.. “that the scaffold in its current state posses an imminent threat to the safety of everyone that uses it, which includes the scaffolders that installed it” as detailed in the hearing bundle [p356-*]. *. Each of these disclosures was made in the belief that they were in the public interest, aiming to highlight failures to comply with legal obligations, endangerment to health and safety, and potential concealment of these issues. Despite these efforts, the response from Project Better Energy Limited was inadequate, leading to a series of detriments that I had experienced, including being subjected to bullying, demeaning and belittling behaviour, misleading communications, and pressure to accept a demotion, ultimately contributing to my ill-health absence leave, fundamental breach of contract and lastly, my decision to resign as being automatically constructively dismissed due to the loss of the implied terms in mutual trust and confidence. Detriments for making Protected Disclosures: *. On * March * I was called a “health and safety gobshite” and all I had done was ask a genuine question concerning available health and safety controls on a job requirement suitable scaffolding. This was also linked to this disclosures made regarding the fall from height accident as I had raised serious shortfalls in the companies project management team, and in their eyes I had not long been employed by the company and now, all of a sudden this person is health and safety and trying to change things. I was then removed from this company What’s App Group this had senior members of staff in the group who did not seem to care about * / * the treatment I had received so soon after I had started to perform my new safety duties. *. On * April *, following my protected disclosures, I was removed from a company WhatsApp group by Mr. Tickner, which made me feel humiliated, belittled, and isolated [*]. *. On * June *, I was required to move from my private office to an open office, placing me in an environment where I was subjected to bullying, further impeding my ability to focus on my role [*] *. On * June *, I emailed Matthew Weightman and Alan Graham weeks after my informal job reversal dated * June *, and received a limited reply. I asked for reasonable adjustment albeit not in those exact words however, any fair minded individual would read the context and understand the essence of what I was seeking, and the same applies to the concerns I raised about experiencing resistance and receiving backhanded comments from colleagues as detailed in the hearing bundle [p375-*]. Matthew Weightman then move to Whats App to continue his part investigation {p377-*] *. On * June *, I sent another request to consider reasonable adjustments however, this time I was ignored by Matthew Weightman and Alan Graham as detailed in the hearing bundle [p382]. *. I was worried my Health & Safety Duties were being neglected due to being overworked by my informal job reviewal back to where I used to work in maintenance. I asked if the job split was short term or not. Ask if there could be set day with different workstation so I could focus more on my health & safety duties but, I could not attract any attention to my genuine concerns. I have not work anywhere in the capacity of health and safety where I have had to beg and plead for help and reasonable adjustment because of changes forced up me and my work. *. On * June *, I was subjected to bullying and demeaning behaviour in the open office by several members of staff, causing me severe anxiety and resulting in me being signed off work as detailed in the hearing bundle [p383-*] *. On * July *, I attended a meeting that had me attend under false pretences, as it deviated significantly from its planned agenda which really caught me by surprise as detailed in the hearing bundle [p398]. * / * *. On * August *, I was sent an invite to an external grievance hearing which I could only ever see as a negative move form the company given the facts of my claim. I responded to Matthew Weightman advising of discrepancies in their invite . Direct Age Discrimination and Less Favourable Treatment: Meeting on 27th July *. On * July *, during a meeting I was led to believe was for support regarding my sickness absence, I was instead pressured to accept a demotion, told my job was at risk, and subjected to comments that indicated a preference for someone from an older generation as detailed in the hearing bundle [p398], [p422.*] *. During this meeting, the way that they treated me took me completely by surprise. The transcript for all of these comments can be found [item * in bundle], [*.*] *. They completely brushed over the health and safety concerns that I had raised by saying “I understand you're health and safety conscious, and you are, and you're health and safety through and through. I understand that, but to… How can I put this? If you've got a dog and you let the dog piss in the corner, and then one day, two years, three years down the line, you give that dog a kick, he's trying to understand why the fucking hell did you kick me? You've let me piss there for the past 12 years. Do you know what I mean?” *. They spent the whole hearing trying to convince me that I was very good at my job, but too good at my job and that’s why they were convincing me to take a demotion. *. They presented it to me as a choice, but I knew it was not. They started by asking me “So how would you feel if we took you away from the health and safety and moved you back to the maintenance perspective?” like it was being done to me rather than really a question. *. When we discussed it more they said, “If I was to say that the health and safety position is still there for you, I think that you're not in the right frame of mind to deal with the negative structure that we've got behind us at the moment.” *. It is very clear from this language that the decision was made, and the job was not there for me anymore. * / * *. The tone was switched in the next sentence when they told me that the demotion came with a pay cut, they wanted to make sure that I knew this when I made my “decision”. *. But the tone changed again in the very next sentence when they said “How can I put this? Control and pushback because that's what's needed.” “Someone from an older generation”. Again, telling me they did not want me for the job anymore. *. The ending of the meeting made me feel small and patronised, they tried to give me medical advice by telling me to google and YouTube it and asking me what I was going to do with my health once they finished me on my medication. I understand them needing to know about my health for work but this was an absolute invasion of privacy and not the format for it at all. *. After this meeting, they sent me the minutes and they were only *.* pages long [bundle item *]. When this is compared with the transcript that ended up at * pages long, it is clear that this was not a full reflection of what was discussed in the meeting. I tried to raise this but they told me I was wrong. [Bundle item *, page *] *. The notes had absolutely no mention of my health and safety concerns, their admissions of health and safety failures or their desire to have someone from an older generation in the job. *. They did however highlight that they have made great business changes, that during the meeting they raised my failures with me and that I was the one who hadn’t thought about their offer. The minutes are very clearly biased especially when compared with the transcript. *. Misleading and Untrue Communications * July * Complaint about Meeting *. Following my complaint about the conduct of the * July meeting, there were delays in addressing my complaint, and communications regarding the grievance process in August and September * were misleading and untrue as detailed in the hearing bundle [p390-*]. Impact on My Well-being: * / * *. These events have not only affected my professional life but have also had a profound impact on my personal well-being. The actions taken by Project Better Energy Limited, in response to my protected disclosures and concerns for safety, have been both detrimental and discriminatory. The lack of appropriate action and the direct age discrimination I have faced are matters of serious concern, and I believe they warrant thorough investigation and appropriate remedial action. *. In my role as Health & Safety Advisor, I raised multiple safety concerns to the senior management at Project Better Energy Limited, which were systematically disregarded. These concerns included non-compliance with Work at Height Regulations, unsafe scaffolding, and the absence of remedial actions following accidents. Despite my repeated disclosures through emails, WhatsApp messages, and conversations, the company failed to take appropriate actions to mitigate these risks, which I believe contributed to an ongoing disregard for safety within the company. *. The lack of response from senior management to my protected disclosures had a detrimental effect on the safety culture of the organization. By not addressing the safety violations I highlighted, the company not only continued to expose its employees and subcontractors to potential harm but also implicitly condoned a workplace environment where safety concerns could be overlooked. This inaction likely perpetuated a culture where safety was not given the priority it legally and ethically required. *. The coercive tactics employed during the meeting on * July * were a clear violation of my rights as an employee. I was led to believe the meeting was for support regarding my sickness absence, but it was instead treated as a performance/capability meeting. [p422.*] *. This misrepresentation and the pressure to accept a demotion constituted a fundamental breach of my employment terms and conditions. *. The implied age discrimination during this meeting, where comments were made suggesting a preference for someone from an older generation for my role, affected my professional standing by undermining my competence based on age. This, along with the other detriments I suffered, ultimately influenced my decision to resign.

How can I put together my legal argument

Provide an example of a strong legal argument using my witness statement

What about a legal chronology

Now rewrite the legal chronology, and legal argument using my witness statement and further and better particulars: Direct Age discrimination & unfavourable treatment *.* On * July *, a phone call with Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) where he said I had to meet them as it had been * weeks since my first day Absence, he told me they wanted a “chat” and this was the first mention of him wanting me to change departments. Mr Matthew Weightman had already been reminded via phone call on * June * that the Claimant had been subjected to a long period of bullying. *.* On * July * - Meeting organised by Mr Matthew Weightman, labelled as "Absence Review & Welfare Meeting" took place at a mutual venue "Branston Golf Club" at about *:30am. *.* Meeting Agenda was sent by Mr Matthew Weightman ahead of this meeting. *.* Meeting Attendees: *.*.* Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations), Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) and Mr Matthew Aitken (Claimant). *.*.* The following relevant points were mentioned: *.*.3a Mr Alan Graham stated "I understand we have failed you but you have failed me." *.*.3b "That I will find an alternative health and safety officer, one that's got a bit more control and pushback." *.*.* Mr Matthew Weightman said something like yes, someone that is from.. and stated "an older generation." *.*.* Mr Alan Graham stated "you're still on a probationary period and we are extending that today." *.*.* Mr Matthew Weightman stated "We can only apologise for what has happened." *.*.7a Mr Alan Graham stated "you have to not take it personally." *.*.7b "You're not a strong enough character to take control of it." *.* Claimant would like to highlight the following to the tribunal: *.*.* In point *.*.*, Mr Alan Graham said the Claimant was still on a probationary period however, it is noted that the Claimant commenced employment on * January * (Employment Contract dated *-*-*.) *.*.* Claimants probationary period was for 6 months which ended on * June *. *.*.* Although the Claimant received a promotion and "significant pay increase" in March *, the "salary increase letter" stated that "other than the increase in wage, all other terms of employment remain unchanged." *.*.* Appendix A of the Claimants Employment Contract states "Report Line: Jessica Patrick (Maintenance Manager), Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager.)" *.*.* Neither of these "Report Lines" were involved in this process. This is against the Claimants contract of employment. *.*.* During the Claimants employment there was no mention either in verbal or written, to suggest that his performance and/or capability was under review. *.*.* Note the Claimants Salary Increase Letter dated * March * stated “I hope you continue your commitment and devotion to the job, and hope you accept this salary increase as we recognise all your hard work for Project Better Energy ltd.” *.*.* At no point prior to * July * had the Claimant been told that his work was unsatisfactory or that his personal character and/or other qualities was impacting on his ability to perform his role as Health & Safety Advisor. *.* The meeting deviated significantly from the planned Agenda, the Claimant attended under false pretences which resulted in major misrepresentation. This made the Claimant feel as though he had been backed into a corner, felt as though he was being side-lined and subjected to unwanted pressure to agree to actions that were not in his best interests. *.* This meeting and actions taken by Mr Alan Graham & Mr Matthew Weightman is considered a fundamental breach of contract and unfavourable treatment towards the Claimant. *.* The Respondent admitted to their failures but, suggested remedies that are classed as detrimental and unfavourable treatment towards the Claimant. *.*.* All based on his Age and lack of personal qualities/Character that they strongly implied someone from an older generation would posses. *.* On the * July * Mr Matthew Weightman emailed a copy of the Meeting minutes to the Claimant: *.*.* CLAIMANT RAISED FORMAL COMPLAINT TO MR MATTHEW WEIGHTMAN: *.*.* The below extracts taken from the Claimants email to Mr Matthew Weightman complaining that the meeting minutes were not reflective of the meeting dated *-*-*: *.*.2a Claimant stated the following omission "the company is looking to recruit someone from an older generation to take that on." *.*.* RESPONDANT RESPONSE TO FORMAL COMPLAINT. *.*.3a Mr Matthew Weightman stated "apologies but what you have stated is within the minutes just not in them words as such!" *.*.3b Mr Matthew Weightman did not in anyway deny the fact that: Age, job risk, threat of pay cut had all been mentioned. He stated these points were "included in the minutes just not in those exact words as such!" Protected Disclosures made in the Public Interest *.* The following communications dated * March *, * March *, * March * x * amount to a protected disclosure: *.* On the * March * Claimant emailed Mr Ben Tickner, (Installations Manager), Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) and Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) following a phone call with Mr Matthew Weightman voicing concerns that the job planned for completion had not had any remedial actions completed following the major fall from roof accident, that the company was not complying with Work at Height Regulations and were at high risk of HSE intervention especially due to the company's last work at height rooflight accident back in * that was under external investigation. Email extracts: *.*.* "I’ve just seen we have plans to revisit the WN8 9DR site tomorrow. Taking into account the recent accident to Jordan, I would suggest we have the scaffolders out to install additional elements to the right side of the roof to provide a safer work area for the roofer." *.*.* I believed that this incident was not an isolated occurrence as it was: a. common knowledge in the office about poor scaffolding provision b. Project Managers were being allowed to get away with ordering the bare minimum required, on a daily basis. The Project Manager on this job was Mr Jamie Ratcliffe. c. I had on many occasions, over-heard both Project Managers and Installations Manager talking to Sub-contractors regarding safety issues raised to them, they would regularly offer to pay them more money, one instance I heard the following statement by Mr Corey Fitzpatrick "I'll give you an extra £*, just to get the job done." * *.* It was my genuine belief that the accident was a direct result of the Respondents failure to comply with Health & Safety law and a breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. In *.*.* to *.*.* above, the Respondent failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2. b. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. c. Work at Height Regulations *. d. *.*.2c was in direct contravention of the Respondents internal policies and is seen as "active bribery" in Construction, the Respondents actions also implicated the sub-contractors unknowingly which is seen as "passive bribery" in Construction." *.*.* On the * March * Claimant emailed Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) following a conversation with them where it was discussed about the Company not meeting the minimum standards under the Work at Height Regulations. Email extracts: *.*.* "As mentioned previously areas that need consideration include: *.*.5a "Work at Height: we have a duty to provide adequate arrangements to prevent falls or to minimise the distance and consequences should a fall occur. the reason Jordan fell off the flat roof was due to there not being additional scaffold installed, if it had been then I believe he would have hit the edge protection." *.*.5b "In this case, the HSE would deem that scaffolding should have been provided in that particular area." *.*.5c "Supervision: We have a legal duty to provide suitable supervision. I think our PM’s need to be given training in H&S Awareness for Managers/Supervisors. This would also reduce the corporate risk." *.*.5d "First Aid: We have a legal duty to provide suitable & sufficient first aid which includes: a first aid kit & a first aider." *.*.5e "domestic installs needs an emergency first aider in each install team especially with us have * high risk areas (work at height & work with DC/AC.)" *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. In *.*.5a to *.*.5e above, the Respondent failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. c. Work at Height Regulations *. d. Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations *. *.*.* On the * March * Claimant sent Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) a What's App message ref Subcontractor Major Accident, this was following multiple verbal notifications to the Management team that their current way of working was exposing the company to high risk of HSE attention and that all it would take was a domestic client to take photos of their work and report it to the HSE. It was also discussed that the RIDDOR notification was incorrect, Mr Matthew Weightman notified the HSE of an "over 7 day injury" when it was in fact a "specified injury" I explained this was due to the Sub-contractor sustaining a fractured hip. I suggested he should update the form and resubmit however, Mr Matthew Weightman ignored this despite me also stating that this would be an issue should the sub-contractor open a civil dispute for compensation claim. Email extracts: *.*.8a "if the HSE investigate and it comes out that additional controls weren't done they could place a notice on us to cease all work at height until they're satisfied that we have achieved compliance." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. *.*.* I genuinely believed that Mr Matthew Weightman’s failure to update the RIDDOR report was an act to withhold Information from the Health and Safety Executive that tends to show any of these things had been, was being or was likely to be deliberately concealed. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) * c. Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations * *.*.* On the * March * Claimant sent Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) an email follow-up. This was after a conversation with Mr Matthew Weightman also highlighted concerns that the Installations Manager responses were indicative of a possible cover-up of Health and Safety law breaking. Email extracts: *.*.12a Claimant stated "did we get this from the scaffolders." This was in reference to where Claimant chased photos as proof the remedial actions were complete. *.*.12b Mr Ben Ticker (Installations Manager) responded stating "Doesn’t look like the pictures show the handrails, I have spoke to the scaffolders who are going to go back tomorrow and take photos before they take it down." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. *.*.* I believe that Mr Ben Tickner’s suggestion to take photos after the install was an act to obtain Information with the intent to deliberately conceal this legal breech. *.*.* Mr Ben Tickner told the Claimant after speaking with Mr Alan Graham, that they had both agreed, in words to the effect of.. “there was no point in adding scaffold as we already did wrong.” *.*.16a This was confirmation that the Respondent knowingly breached Work at Height Regulations and the controls they failed to implement were remedials following the roof fall accident back in February *. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) *. c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. *.*.* On * March * Claimant sent email response to Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) with reference to the above: Email extracts: *.*.17a "Going forward we will require handovers for all scaffold installations including photos. We're too exposed as things are currently." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the Respondents lack of interest was prevalent throughout their Management team and the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) *. c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. e. Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations *. f. National Access Scaffolding Confederation SC *:* Handover of Scaffold Structures. *.* On the * March * the Claimant sent an Email to Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations), Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager) Mr Nigel Culbert (Scaffold Manager) following Cumbria Council Local Authority letter received about scaffolding H&S permit breach. This was following conversations with Mr Ben Tickner and Mr Nigel Culbert where I highlighted the implications of this incident and that although, the Company uses Scaffolding Contractors, the Company is still accountable for their acts or omissions "Vicarious Liability." I explained about CDM Regulations and that the Company instructs Scaffolders about the location of the structures but, doesn't highlight when pavement permits are required however, little interest from the Management team and Senior Management despite narrowly avoiding enforcement action. Email extracts: *.*.1a "We really have got to tighten the reins on our scaffolding sub-contractors as their acts/omissions puts PSUK in direct line of fire as the company who engaged those sub-contractors." *.*.1b "If JMG hadn’t have acted promptly, the Council would have issued an enforcement notice on us." *.*.1c "we would fall short on our duties under CDM ref our diligence & monitoring of subcontractors." *.*.1d It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.1e I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) *. c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations * e. Highways Act * s169 Licence required to Erect a Scaffold on the public highway. f. National Access Scaffolding Confederation SG *:* Guidance on Protection of the Public. *.* On the * April * the Claimant sent an email to Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager) Mr Nigel Culbert (Scaffold Manager) and the offending Scaffolding Subcontractor regarding unsafe and non-compliant Scaffolding, handovers dated * April *. This was following a conversation with Mr Matthew Weightman notifying him that the Scaffolding did not meet Health & Safety law. Email extracts: *.*.1a "B14 5PH - The whole structure is on the roof which is heavy, plus men and materials. What weight can the roof hold? Has that been verified?" *.*.1b "No safe means of access in that needing to climb on to a roof with no edge protection." *.*.1c "No fall prevention at access opening e.g. gate." *.*.1d "Lapped boards at access posing trip hazard." *.*.1e "No toe boards on end." *.*.1f "Braces missing." *.*.1g "Doglegs." *.*.1h "Photos missing of the front scaffold *.*.1i "Weren’t sent on completion, erected *:56am and emailed to us at *:*." *.*.1j "I’m by no means an expert and I am open to correction should I have incorrectly flagged what I thought to be an issue but, I am aware that you did say now we are all being more safety conscious that structures would be fully compliant with TG20 and Work at Height regulations. Please confirm if this is considered as normal practice or were these an oversight?" *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) *. c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. e. National Access Scaffolding Confederation TG *:* Operational Guide *.* The following communications dated * April *, * April *, * April * and * May * amount to a protected disclosure: *.*.* On the * April * the Claimant sent a What's App message to Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) regarding jobs reported to have no Scaffolding by a Sub-contractor. This was following a conversation with a sub-contractor, the one who was injured in the fall from height in February *, the subcontractor reported that he alone had at least two installs where the Respondent had not provided any scaffolding. What's App extracts: *.*.* Mr Alan Graham responded asking "can I have the postcodes of the * sites with no scaff?" *.*.* Claimant replied with a screenshot of the sub-contractors disclosure: *.*.3a "I always report an unsafe scaff and question why some jobs don't have them. There shouldn't really be any open gaps while working on roofs." *.*.3b He went on to say "I've been doing this job a long time." And added "even after nearly being killed due to scaff issues. Nothing has changed." *.*.* Claimant then stated to Mr Alan Graham and Mr Matthew Weightman "maybe these * scaffs were down as customer provided..." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) *. c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. e. National Access Scaffolding Confederation TG *:* Operational Guide *.* On the * April * the Claimant sent a What's App message to Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) following on from *.*.*, after receiving a message from the sub-contractor with job location details: What's App extracts: *.*.* "Those two jobs were concrete bungalows, Corey suggested that Senior Management haven't stated that scaffolding was a requirement." *.*.* Mr Alan Graham stated "it will be brought up in the Directors meeting today." *.*.3a Claimant went on to say "the other concern in my opinion is where customers provide their own scaffolding, for full diligence we need to ensure checks are made and we request evidence that the Scaffold is in place and is suitable & fit for purpose." *.*.3b Claimant then stated "just need to ensure we have documented evidence in every circumstance demonstrating we have sufficiently monitored and coordinated H&S as required by CDM Regs." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. The Respondent was enabling the behaviours demonstrated by the Installations Manager and Project Managers, in that jobs with flat roofs and bungalows were unlikely to have scaffold provision as confirmed by an employee in *.*.* *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) *. c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. *.* On the * April * the Claimant received a What's App message from Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) following the Directors Meeting. The Claimant was instructed to make amendments to the Respondents method statement & risk assessment relating to work at height, the requirement for all roofers to wear safety harnesses. Mr Alan Graham also highlighted the fact that the CEO, Mr Simon Peat had stated that Scaffolding edge protection/rails were not required on roof edges/verges etc. *.*.* Claimant immediately raised concerns that the instruction given by the CEO was not correct and sent a What's App message to Mr Alan Graham and Mr Matthew Weightman stating extracts: *.*.1a "it would be remiss of me not to reiterate where scaffolding roof rails sits within the within risk management/hierarchy when looking at fall prevention collective vs personal measures." *.*.1b "this will highlight shortfalls regards to our supervision & monitoring of contractors on site." *.*.1c "in the event of an accident" "if an investigation deems that roof rails was reasonably practicable i.e. * panel install where panels don't impede access, even if we state harnesses must be used, they could still say we hadn't taken all reasonable steps to have prevented an accident from happening." *.*.1d "all our precautions and controls have to be justifiable and potentially in a court of law." *.*.1e "we need to have documented justification as to why scaff edge zone isn't required in all instances." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. The Respondents CEO, Head of Operations and Compliance Manager were supporting the poor management & safety culture of the Company . *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) * (to assess all reasonably foreseeable risks). c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. *.* On the * May * Claimant followed up from the disclosure made in *.*.*, *.*.1a to *.*.1e with an email to Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) after reading the Directors Meeting Minutes which had agreed actions that were not compliant with the Work at Height Regulations hierarchy of risk control, specifically using personal protection measures in preference to collective protection measures: Extracts include: *.* "I’ve just read through the meeting minutes and have attached the draft RAMS which includes additional WAH controls and the Dynamic Risk Assessment. In the scenario that Simon gave, we can do what he has suggested but we will need to provide a suitable anchorage point in the absence of edge protection to achieve safe fall restraint. I’m guessing the Tesco fall restraint system he mentioned is similar to that provided at DWP Leeds, this was a permanent mansafe line which was subjected to * monthly statutory inspections." *.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) * (to assess all reasonably foreseeable risks - the relevant test here is "industry knowledge"). c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. *.* On the * May * Claimant sent an email to Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager), Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) this was following conversations had the day before, * May *, in the open office where I specifically stated that having no Scaffolding was a direct breach of the Work at Height Regulations. This disclosure is a repeat offence, same issue as that which was reported in *.* above dated * April *. Extracts include: *.*.* "What's gone on with this bungalow full reinstall? When we were all talking yesterday (Sam, James, Corey and yourself) I was led to believe it was going to be done today as customer had made a complaint due to no one turning up yesterday." *.*.* "I made all aware that there was no scaffolding in place and said it needed it before the roof install." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) * (to assess all reasonably foreseeable risks - the relevant test here is "industry knowledge"). c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. *.* On * May * Claimant sent a What's App message to Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager): *.*.* "We wouldn't have known about that scaffold if the customer hadn't voiced his concerns." "There was high risk of collapse if it had been left in its initial state, we're literally on borrowed time." *.*.* Mr Matthew Weightman stated "I know we wouldn't have." "As you have emailed stating the same this will be picked up on Wednesday." *.*.* It was my genuine belief that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (as amended) * (to assess all reasonably foreseeable risks - the relevant test here is "industry knowledge"). c. Construction (Design & Management) Regulations *. d. Work at Height Regulations *. *.* On * June * Claimant sent an email to Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager), Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) following a conversation with Installations Manager after finding out he had knowingly used a roofer to install electrical elements of a Solar installation, Claimant told the Installations Manager that the roofer was not a qualified or competent electrician and this wasn’t legal: Extract includes: *.*.* “It’s been brought to my attention that we had Rob Campbell complete the following maintenance task on */*/*: IQ * - Inverter relocated from loft to a cupboard on the level below with all cables extended. *.*.* “The above task requires an engineer to have relevant theoretical & technical competencies to meet various Company, Industry and Regulatory requirements.” *.*.* “If Rob can demonstrate the above by sending us proof of his competence to undertake electrical work, then that’s fine however, if he can’t then I would strongly advise that we stick to using company approved Electricians.” *.*.* “I would also suggest we send an electrician to test & commission the new install. This will help mitigate any possible issues should the system fail in someway causing damage to equipment or personal injury.” *.* The following communications dated * June * and * June * and * June * amount to a protected disclosure: *.*.* On * June * Claimant sent an email to Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) and Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) following a phone call from Mr Aaron Jackson based at the Manchester office, Mr Aaron Jackson reported to the Claimant that the Company was not complying with Local Authority regulations specifically not notifying the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) "the grid" when installing Solar PV systems with export exceeding *.6kw, these instances would require pre-notification. *.*.1a Claimant had also been told by one of the Manufacturer support groups (Solax/FoxESS) that the "Grid Volt Faults" that were being flagged on Customers systems on a weekly basis was due to systems being installed that hadn't had the required DNO authorisation." Extracts include: *.*.* "he started to give information regarding IQ * complaints that is currently being dealt with by Customer Resolutions with communication from Alan." *.*.1a "suggested that DNO’s might not have been applied for on jobs that would require them?" *.*.*'b "It was then suggested that paperwork may have incorrect system size recorded intentionally, to avoid needing a DNO." *.*.1c "If a customer queries these then records are altered and DNO’s applied for. The customer would be told there was an error?" *.*.1d "This was a direct call to my * extensions so there should be a recording of the conversation should this need investigating." *.*.2a It was my genuine belief that a person had failed, was failing or was likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation. *.*.2b Information tending to show any of these things had been, was being or was likely to be deliberately concealed. *.*.* I genuinely believed that the Respondent was continuing to have a complete disregard of their duty to comply with Health & Safety law and a continued breech of its legal obligations to comply with industry best practice. They failed to meet their Duties as under: a. Health and Safety at Work Act *, s2 and s3 (duties to non-employees "general public and contractors.") b. Local Authority National Grid DNO - G98 or G99 Detriments resulting from Protected Disclosures *.* Abusive message from Respondent Project Manager, Corey Fitzpatrick in a Third Party Subcontractor What’s App group and immediate removal from that Group Chat. *.* Dated * March * *.* Linked to Disclosures made in Sections *.* to *.*. *.* This made the Claimant feel Humiliated and Belittled not only to Respondents staff but, a third party Contractor, GL Electrical Seniors. *.* This was reported to Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) over the phone and in a What’s App message. *.* Immediate removal from another Company What’s App group by Respondent Installations Manager following Claimant question to Project Manager suggesting they replace one of the Subcontractors. *.* Dated * April * *.* Linked to Disclosures made in Sections *.*, *.*, *.* and *.* *.* This made the Claimant feel Humiliated, Belittled and Isolated due to the Company What’s App group chat having all Project Managers and Head of Operations as members. *.* This was also at a time, where the Head of Operations had the Claimant working at a DWP/NHS England site in Leeds for an extended period of time, *-* weeks. The Head of Operations at the time the Claimant was promoted in March *, instructed all Company Directors that the Claimant was to work exclusively for PSUK Ltd only. *.* Claimant raised serious concerns to the Head of Operations and Compliance Manager that were ignored, this was following the Company non-compliant instructions from the CEO. *.*.* Fundamental breach of the Claimant Terms and Conditions of Employment. *.*.* A breach of internal procedures where genuine Health & Safety Hazards were raised and not investigated or actioned. *.* Dated * May *. *.* Linked to Disclosures made in Sections *.* and *.* *.* Although linked to Sections *.* and *.*, it is important to know that this issue (scaffolding and working at height) was a continuous red flag problem even prior to the Claimant being employed by the Respondent. *.* Informal reversal of job role by Respondent Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager) *.*.* Fundamental breach of the Claimant Terms and Conditions of Employment. *.* Dated * June *. *.* Linked to all Disclosures made that pre-date * June *. The action taken aimed to overwork the Claimant so he could no longer meet his duties as the Company Health & Safety Advisor. *.* This was reported to Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) prior to the forced move and a number of email Complaints made to Mr Matthew Weightman and Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) in June * which were all ignored. *.* The Respondents failure to acknowledge and act on these Complaints breached their internal Complaints/Grievance procedures. *.*.* The Respondents failure to Investigate breached their internal procedures and the ACAS Code of Conduct. *.* The Respondents acts/omissions enabled the poor management culture and permitted their poor conduct towards the Claimant. *.*.* This made the Claimant feel even more stressed and anxious due to most Senior stakeholders allowing all of this behaviour to persist. *.* Claimant subjected to Bullying and Demeaning Behaviour in the open office by Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager), Corey Fitzpatrick (Project Manager), Steven Buckner (Project Manager), Jamie Ratcliffe (Project Manager) and other members of Staff. *.* Dated * June *. *.* Linked to Disclosures made in Sections *.*. *.* This was reported to Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) and Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) via email in detail. *.* The Respondent failed to acknowledge all parts of the complaint and did not complete a full investigation into the issues this breached their internal procedures and the ACAS Code of Conduct. *.4a The Respondents failure to see this through allowed the situation to continue and to escalate. *.* This made the Claimant feel Belittled and Undermined and especially due to staff saying he was no longer working in safety. *.* The Respondent provided feedback following this incident and the other reports of bullying during the meeting dated * July *. *.* Claimant subjected to Bullying and Demeaning Behaviour in the open office by Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager), Corey Fitzpatrick (Project Manager), Steven Buckner (Project Manager), Jamie Ratcliffe (Project Manager) and other members of Staff. *.* Dated * June * *.* Linked to Disclosures made throughout June * *.* Final straw incident in the open office where Claimant was openly bullied by Mr Ben Tickner (Installations Manager), Mr Jamie Ratcliffe (Project Manager) and other staff members. *.* This incident ignored by the Respondent caused the Claimant to suffer with severe anxiety and resulted in the Claimant being signed off work and prescribed antidepressants. *.* Subjected to a performance/capability assessment following multiple Protected Disclosures and after Claimants multiple reports of Bullying. *.1a Fundamental breach of the Claimant Terms and Conditions of Employment. *.* Dated * July * *.* Meeting Agenda was only intended as a formal record to support the Respondent and was not followed. This act by Mr Matthew Weightman and Mr Alan Graham resulted in the Claimants attendance under false pretences. *.3a A loss of the Implied term of Mutual Trust and Confidence between Employer and Employee. A failure to carry out a fair investigation process. *.* Meeting minutes sent to the Claimant on * July * did not accurately reflect the discussion topics. The Claimant complained to Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) but, did not receive a satisfactory response. *.4a Claimant sent Mr Matthew Weightman and Mr Alan Graham a formal email letter “working under protest” which clearly set out his disappointment and dissatisfaction with their Outcome. *.* Respondent email attaching Invite to Grievance Hearing letter *.* The invite letter and correspondence that pre-dates it suggests the Respondent had not long become aware of the Claimants grievances and had therefore invoked their Grievance process on * August *. *.* The issues with the above are four-fold in that: *.2a Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) had already acknowledged and responded in part to the Claimants grievance report in June *, this included Mr Matthew Weightman asking the Claimant a series of Investigatory questions which he later abandoned. *.2b Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) and Mr Alan Graham (Head of Operations) both concluded the outcome of their investigation which they disclosed during the meeting dated * July *. *.2c The Claimant raised a formal complaint following meeting minutes that Mr Matthew Weightman sent on * July * that followed the meeting dated * July *. The formal complaint included specific details on why the Claimant was not satisfied. Mr Matthew Weightman responded alleging he had not been made aware of any issues pre-dating * July *. *.2d The invite to Grievance Hearing letter dated * August *. *.* It is important for the Tribunal to be aware that in either point above, *.2a – *.2d, it is clear that the Respondent not only failed to follow their Internal Grievance procedure but also failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Conduct as it is evident that the Respondent took anywhere between * weeks to 3 months to undertake a suitable investigation into the Claimants grievances and Protected Disclosure complaints. *.* A loss of the Implied term of Mutual Trust and Confidence between Employer and Employee. A failure to carry out a fair investigation process. *.* The Claimant final formal notification of Constructive Dismissal dated * September *. *.* Mr Matthew Weightman (Compliance Manager) response to the Claimants Constructive Dismissal Resignation strongly implied that the Claimant had not given the Respondent a chance to investigate and that the Claimant should give them a chance however, the facts contained ib this Direction of Issues highlights that the Respondent had multiple opportunities and failed to act on them. Instead the Respondents actions indicate attempts to cover-up multiple wrongdoing. OTHER ISSUES *. Respondents failure to satisfy DSAR based on without prejudice protection however, Respondent made no genuine attempt to negotiate and instead made multiple allegations against the Claimant which the Claimant felt was done in an Aggressive manner. *. The facts contained in this Direction of Issues highlights what the Claimant believes to be Unambiguous Impropriety, the Claimant would there for request the Tribunal to investigate and consider removal of the Without Prejudice protection.

Now write the legal argument