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

Pexels tiger lily 4481323 1024x683

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 concerns were ignored.

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.

No Transfer of Vicarious Liability Under TUPE, High Court Rules

When a transfer of a business takes place to which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) applies, does any vicarious liability of the original employer to a third party for wrongdoing by an employee transfer to the new employer? The High Court has answered that question with a resounding ‘no’. A woman was seeking damages for wrongs suffered while she had been a hospital inpatient. She claimed that the company that had owned the hospital was responsible…

Landlords – Keep Your Properties Hazard Free or Face the Full Force of the Law

The balance of power in overheated rental markets where demand outstrips supply tends to shift in favour of landlords. As a High Court ruling showed, however, those involved in renting out defective or hazardous homes are likely to feel the hard edge of both the criminal and civil law. A couple with four young children complained to a local authority about the state of their rental property. A housing enforcement officer visited the house and identified serious hazards, including defective…

Court Upholds Planning Consent for Heliport Close to Fuel Storage Depots

Few human activities are entirely risk free but, when deciding whether to authorise potentially hazardous developments, planning professionals have to keep the worst-case scenario well in mind. In a case on point, the High Court opened the way for construction of a commercial heliport despite fears that its proximity to huge fuel storage depots would present a risk of catastrophe. The heliport was proposed for a site in the docklands area of a major city. Within a few hundred metres of the…