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.

Engaging a Tradesman? Do You Understand Your Health and Safety Duties?

If a tradesman sustains injury whilst working on a client’s premises, should the client be liable to pay compensation? The High Court pondered that important issue in the case of a builder who fell through a barn roof, suffering catastrophic injuries. The builder, who was in his late 50s, was engaged by a farmer to replace the barn’s guttering. Working alongside his son, he sensibly installed crawler boards so as to spread his weight on the barn’s fragile roof. As his son passed sections of…

Workplace Drugs Policies – ET Fell into Substitution Trap

When considering whether a dismissal is unfair, Employment Tribunals (ETs) must resist the temptation to substitute their own views for those of the employer. That golden rule came under analysis in a case concerning a worker who was dismissed after testing positive for cannabis. The man, a team leader who worked for a recycling company, had been off work for an extended period, suffering from back pain. He self-medicated with cannabis and failed a random drug test after his return to work. He…

Age Discrimination, Redundancy and the Burden of Proof – Guideline Ruling

Where an older employee is treated less favourably than a younger one in a similar position, the burden shifts onto the employer to prove that age discrimination had no effect on its decision-making. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an administration manager who was made redundant at the age of 67. The man had worked for a car sales company for more than 20 years when he was selected for redundancy. He contended that his dismissal was pre-determined and motivated by…