How a McColl's shop worker took on the retail giant over pay and working conditions - and beat them in court after being 'sacked for blowing the whistle'

Jeff P. Brannan, who worked at three Wyre shops run by the retail giant, clashed with managers over alleged unpaid ‘cashing-up’ time and staffing issues before being fired.

McColl’s, which has around 1,550 shops, said he was dismissed because of his behaviour. But, following a hearing, Employment Judge Aspden ruled he was unfairly fired, and said it was “more likely than not” because of his whistle-blowing revelations.

Mr Brannan, who said he was standing up for his colleagues in a heated meeting, triggered an investigation into McColl’s by the HMRC, and also reported the firm to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after voicing his fears about staff being left to man tills alone without a panic alarm.

The firm was fined £150,000 in 2015 for failing to protect staff following a spate of robberies on the Wirral, while a number of branches on the Fylde coast have been raided in recent years.

Mr Brannan’s report to the HSE, which he sent to the company and MPs asking if “one of my colleagues need to be killed before anything is done to stop these dangerous working practices”, came just days before McColl’s in Norbreck Road, Norbreck, was robbed by a man wielding a blade.

Although no staff were hurt when Damien Eichner, pictured, targeted McColl’s and two other shops in a 15-minute spree in September 2017, his trial judge Robert Altham said the then-25-year-old’s behaviour was “terrifying” to his victims.

He said: “People who run shops like this are particularly vulnerable to attacks because people like you know there’s money on the premises, that they have little money to spent on security, and that they are alone.”

The HMRC said it “cannot comment on identifiable businesses for legal reasons” but said the Government names and shames firms that do not pay the minimum wage. McColl’s has never been listed.

Wyre Council, which investigates health and safety issues at newsagents, said it probed McColl’s, with Mr Brannan “informed of action taken”. It declined to expand, however, saying: “We don’t comment on individual cases.”

Mr Brannan first began working for McColl’s in Anchorsholme as a sales assistant in August 2015. He later moved to the Fleetwood branch before moving to the “Thornton-Cleveleys” store in July 2017 following a row with his line manager Mike Bottomley and branch manager, the tribunal was told.

Later that month, he accused the firm of failing to pay the minimum wage. In a meeting between Mr Brannan and regional manager Mark Jones, the company admitted underpaying Mr Brannan and said he had been given the £315 owed.

But during the talks, Mr Brannan said the issue of working without pay during ‘cash-up time’ was common practice. He said: “The issue I’ve put forward is not just for me, it’s for all my colleagues that have been underpaid. By the time I’m finished, HMRC will be making you pay back all those people.”

A union rep at the meeting said McColl’s had around 20,000 staff, with Mr Brannan saying he had worked it out. He said: “It’s about £1.5 million every year.”

Mr Brannan referred to the £150,000 fine, which he said was for “endangering the lives” of staff, and claimed people were working alone without a panic alarm – and that bosses had failed to “learn their lesson”.

The next day, he filed his reports with the HMRC and HMRC.

Less than two weeks later, four complaints were made about Mr Brannan, accusing him of being rude to customers, aggressive with co-workers, and openly grumbling about the firm. Disciplinary proceedings were opened, which Mr Brannan described as a “witch-hunt”.

After being given less than 24 hours’ notice to attend a disciplinary meeting, Mr Brannan sent an email to area manager Jason Chapman saying he wouldn’t have time to prepare his case or seek union advice.

Mr Chapman sent the email to Mr Jones and said: “I may set it [the meeting] for next week with him being on his hols.”

He later blamed a typo for the message and said he intended to write: “I won’t set it for next week,” though Judge Aspden said: “I find that explanation to be implausible.”

A follow-up email, in which Mr Brannan asked for copies of the complaints for his solicitor, was also forwarded to Mr Jones, this time along with the remark: “How to win friends and influence people.” He admitted the comment was unprofessional, the tribunal was told, but said: “Unfortunately, it was a result of how frustrating I found Mr Brannan to deal with.”

During the eventual meeting, Mr Brannan said he felt those who complained had been coerced and were lying but, after an internal investigation, Mr Chapman dismissed his claims and sacked him with immediate effect, saying there was no evidence of collusion despite Mr Brannan warning of a “vendetta” against him by Mr Bottomley, his former line manager.

An appeal was thrown out, with Mr Brannan deciding to sue. He put his case forward on two alternative bases: Either Mr Chapman wanted to fire him because of his whistle-blowing; or he was manipulated into doing so by Mr Jones or Mr Bottomley, who he said sought complaints to engineer disciplinary action for the same reason.

Ruling that Mr Brannan was unfairly sacked, Judge Aspden said there was a “significant body of evidence pointing towards the complaints ... having been solicited by Mr Jones and/or Mr Bottomley”, including all four statements being signed on the same day. Judge Aspden also heard claims the complainants were offered cash – and, in one alleged case, a promotion - to write their statements.

He said Mr Jones “involved himself in the appeal because he wanted to influence its outcome”, and added: “Consistently with that, I infer that Mr Jones also sought to influence the outcome of the disciplinary process”, and said there was “evidence pointing to Mr Jones having been motivated by the whistle-blowing reports.”

Mr Chapman made “firm and repeated denials” that Mr Brannan was fired for the reports, the court was told, and the judge said he “may genuinely have believed that the claimant had behaved improperly towards staff and customers.”

But he added: “However, the perfunctory nature of his investigation, the tone of his emails about the claimant, his willingness to actively involve Mr Jones in the disciplinary process, and his decision not to take into account the claimant’s clean disciplinary record when considering the sanction all indicate to me that, even if Mr Chapman genuinely believed the claimant had behaved improperly towards staff and customers, the main reason for dismissing the claimant was that he had made protected disclosures.”

Judge Aspden left Mr Brannan and McColl’s to agree compensation – and said the tribunal could reconvene if they could not.

In a statement, McColl’s told The Gazette it “accepted the court’s judgement” and said the “matter has been concluded”.

Mr Brannan could not be reached for a comment.