Employers – Feelings of Unfairness Cannot Justify Penalising Whistleblowers

Even employers who feel that they have been unfairly criticised have no excuse for targeting whistleblowers for detrimental treatment. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in the case of a senior care worker who raised welfare and safeguarding concerns affecting residents in a…

Jan 06, 2023

Ani kolleshi vu dazveny0 unsplash 1024x612

Even employers who feel that they have been unfairly criticised have no excuse for targeting whistleblowers for detrimental treatment. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in the case of a senior care worker who raised welfare and safeguarding concerns affecting residents in a care home.

After making the disclosures, both to the care home’s owner and to public healthcare authorities, the woman was suspended. She resigned in the midst of a disciplinary process and launched ET proceedings.

Upholding her case, the ET found that she had made three protected disclosures in the reasonable belief that the information disclosed was substantially true. She had been subjected to various detriments – including her suspension – the imposition of which was materially influenced by her whistleblowing. In short, she was constructively dismissed because she blew the whistle.

The employer felt that the disclosures were tremendously unfair, but the ET had no hesitation in finding that it conducted itself in a manner calculated to damage or destroy the employment relationship of mutual trust and confidence and did so because she had the temerity to make protected disclosures. The employer thereby fundamentally and repeatedly breached her employment contract.

She did not receive the benefit of a proper investigation and the evidence indicated that the employer had no real interest in discussing her concerns or properly looking into them. The investigating and dismissing officers were one and the same and a disciplinary hearing had been conducted in an unprofessional manner that left her feeling humiliated. She was suspended without reasonable or proper cause.

The employer was ordered to pay her basic and compensatory awards in respect of her automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal, totalling £5,576. She was also awarded £16,875 for injury to her feelings.

Agency Workers Have No Right to Apply for Vacant Permanent Positions

Agency workers have a right to be informed by those who hire them of permanent positions that become vacant – but are they also entitled to apply for such posts? Following an important test case, the Court of Appeal has answered that question decisively in the negative. The case concerned a worker who was employed by an agency that was owned by, and provided staff exclusively to, Royal Mail in order to enable the latter to react to fluctuations in demand for labour. When permanent positions…

Gender Transition – Deadnamed Employee Wins Substantial Compensation

Those who undergo the challenging process of gender transition are entitled to their employers’ full understanding and support in establishing their new identity. A local authority which woefully failed in that obligation by persistently deadnaming a transitioning employee was ordered to pay her substantial compensation. The woman gave the council eight months’ notice of her intention to transition. She subsequently launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, alleging numerous acts of direct…

Exposure to Toxic Substances at Work – Guideline Court of Appeal Ruling

Exposure to toxic substances at work is often cited as a possible cause of diseases developed later in life. However, as an important Court of Appeal ruling made plain, establishing the plausibility of such causal links may not, by itself, be enough to succeed in an occupational injury claim. The case concerned a man who developed Parkinson’s disease after working for an industrial employer for almost 40 years. After he launched a personal injury claim, a judge found that he had been exposed on…