Whistleblower Treated as ‘Complainer’ Receives Substantial Compensation

Whistleblowers perform a vital role in the public interest and managers who persist in viewing their activities merely as inconvenient belly-aching expose themselves to condemnation by Employment Tribunals (ETs). That was certainly so in the case of a warehouse worker whose health and safety…

Feb 09, 2022

The man reported a number of health and safety issues to his managers. Amongst other things, he noticed that cardboard and pallets were being stored in a way that prevented access to fire extinguishers and fire exits, and that a safety switch on a conveyor belt was not working because it was blocked with a cable tie.

He said that his activities resulted in a witch-hunt against him. He was given unpleasant jobs to do, was three times denied promotion and was insulted and harassed by way of the warehouse’s public radio channel. He resigned after his mental health deteriorated to the point where he dreaded going to work and had suicidal thoughts. He later launched ET proceedings.

In ruling on the matter, the ET found that he was constructively dismissed. He was badly treated on a number of occasions in a manner that amounted to a fundamental breach of the relationship of trust and confidence that should be a feature of any employment relationship. The mistreatment had caused his resignation.

He reasonably believed that his concerns were justified and that he had raised them in the public interest. Managers, however, ignored his disclosures and marked him down as a complainer. The various detriments to which he was subjected were connected to his whistleblowing activities and his dismissal was thus automatically unfair. His former employer was ordered to pay him £20,959 in compensation, including £6,000 for injury to his feelings.

Providing Your Services Via a Company May Not Always Be a Good Idea

There can be advantages, both in terms of flexibility and tax efficiency, in providing your services via a private company. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, such arrangements may also have the less desirable effect of stripping you of any employment rights you might otherwise have had. A nurse who worked part time at a care home launched ET proceedings against its owner, alleging unfair constructive dismissal and that she had been subjected to racial discrimination and…

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…

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…