Health and Safety – Forklift Truck Driver Sacked for Whistleblowing

Workplace whistleblowers operate very much in the public interest but, all too often, they are punished rather than praised for their activities. The point was made by the case of a veteran forklift truck driver who was summarily dismissed after repeatedly alerting his employer to a serious…

Jan 26, 2022

Pexels elevate 1267324 1024x683

Workplace whistleblowers operate very much in the public interest but, all too often, they are punished rather than praised for their activities. The point was made by the case of a veteran forklift truck driver who was summarily dismissed after repeatedly alerting his employer to a serious health and safety risk.

After witnessing an incident in which a pallet weighing up to 500 kg fell from a height of nine metres, the driver three times expressed concern to his employer that pallets were being overloaded. On the final occasion, he used his mobile phone to take photos of one such pallet and showed them to his supervisor.

He was first suspended and then dismissed on grounds that he had breached a strict company policy that banned employees from making mobile phone calls or sending texts on the shop floor. He launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings on the basis that he had been subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures – whistleblowing – and that his dismissal was therefore automatically unfair.

Upholding his complaint, the ET found that his whistleblowing was the real and principal reason for his dismissal. Acting in the public interest, he reasonably believed that the information he provided to the employer revealed a health and safety risk. Having taken his mobile phone briefly from his locker in order to take the photos, he had neither spoken to anyone on the device nor sent a text. By doing so, he used reasonable means to protect himself and fellow workers.

The ET also found that his dismissal amounted to a breach of contract and that the employer had failed in its obligation to pay him whilst he was suspended. If not agreed, the amount of his compensation would be assessed at a further hearing.

Gender-Critical Beliefs Entitled to Legal Protection – Test Case Ruling

A person’s philosophical beliefs may be viewed as wrong and offensive by some, but that does not exclude them from protection under the law. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in a unique test case concerning a think tank researcher who believed that sex is immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity. The woman considered that statements such as ‘woman means adult human female’ and ‘trans women are male’ are statements of neutral fact that are not transphobic and…

Discrimination and the Burden of Proof – Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Ever since a crucial alteration was made to the wording of the Equality Act 2010, the question of where the burden of proof lies in employment discrimination cases has been the focus of intense legal debate. An important Supreme Court ruling has, however, resolved the issue once and for all. The case concerned a postman who was born in Nigeria and identified as black African and Nigerian. He had qualifications in computing and wished to obtain a managerial or technical role within Royal Mail.…

Knee-Jerk Dismissals Are No Way to Resolve Boardroom Conflicts

Boardroom tensions often lead to precipitate action but resorting to dismissal without following proper procedures is never a good solution. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in upholding whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and age discrimination complaints brought by a start-up company’s former chief financial officer. The woman’s dismissal occurred against a background of increasingly dysfunctional boardroom relationships. Without due process, she was removed as a Companies House…