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.

Restrictive Covenants and Employers’ Legitimate Business Interests

When it comes to considering the enforceability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, judges are required to focus on the need of employers to protect their legitimate business interests. The Court of Appeal emphasised that point in a guideline case. A software company sought a pre-trial injunction against a former employee, alleging that he had breached a non-compete covenant in his employment contract. The covenant forbade him from working for a competitor for 12…

Non-Executive Directors and ‘Worker’ Status – Guideline Ruling

Can a non-executive director who receives no more than an honorarium for services that he provides voluntarily enjoy the protected status of a ‘worker’? That was the thorny issue addressed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in a guideline case. The case concerned a professional who was appointed to a four-year non-executive directorship of a national sporting body. In Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings, he alleged that he had been subjected to detriments for whistleblowing. His claim…

Exemplary Sales Assistant Succeeds in Pregnancy Discrimination Claim

There can be few things more harmful to an employer’s reputation than a finding that it has discriminated against a worker for being pregnant. In a damning decision, an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled that an exemplary sales assistant was dismissed because of her employer’s reluctance to shoulder the cost of her maternity leave. The woman was a model employee who worked long hours, six days a week, for a retailer that paid her the minimum wage. During the 13 months she held her job, she was…