Phillip Towning, a minibus driver who challenged the lawfulness of being allowed to transport children, has won a legal claim for unfair dismissal after making “whistle blowing” allegations in a driving licences dispute.
But at an East London employment tribunal, Judge Ferguson has decided that Mr Towning’s complaint of detriment on the grounds of making his disclosures has failed.
The judge criticised the respondents, Monarchs Childcare Ltd of Grays, Essex, however, for “maliciously providing a negative reference” for Mr Towning, which prevented him getting another job.
The judge’s decisions come after Mr Towning made his legal claims against the firm.
Another hearing is yet to be held to decide how much award is to be made for the unfair dismissal and “negative reference” claim.
Mr Towning complained that he was dismissed because he alleged the minibuses were being used without the appropriate licence.
The respondents, who provided breakfast and after-school clubs, used 17-seater minibuses to transport children aged three months to five years to and from primary school.
Monarchs said Mr Towning had been made redundant and that, at one stage, DVSA had advised them that they could continue to operate as they were with the requirement to register either for a full O-Licence or a Section 19/22 – whichever best suited the respondents.
The respondents also applied for Section 19 permits.
The judge’s report said that Mr Towning claimed he believed he was not lawfully allowed to drive the minibuses because of a dispute over the appropriate licences. He raised his disclosures with the respondents.
Two other drivers resigned and Mr Towning complained that he was eventually unfairly dismissed after making the disclosures.
Mr Towning said that he secured a trial period as a driver with Euroloo Ltd and that the respondents supplied a reference, but that the reference was a negative one and he did not get the job.
Judge Ferguson said in the report that the tribunal concluded that the respondents “maliciously provided a negative reference that caused the claimant to lose a job opportunity.
“We found that the disclosures relied upon by the claimant occurred and the respondent was obliged to comply with the law applicable to PSVs. The disclosures were made in the claimant’s reasonable belief that the disclosures were in the public’s interest.”
The tribunal decision was that Mr Towning had been unfairly dismissed and that his allegations had “maternally influenced the respondent’s decision to provide an unfair negative reference.”
