Whistleblowing and the Public Interest – Guideline EAT Ruling

Workplace disclosures of information can only qualify for whistleblowing protection if they are made in the public interest – but what exactly does that mean? Guidance on that issue was given in an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling.

Whilst working for a law firm as a…

Feb 25, 2021

Pexels energepiccom 561458 1024x839

Workplace disclosures of information can only qualify for whistleblowing protection if they are made in the public interest – but what exactly does that mean? Guidance on that issue was given in an important Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling.

Whilst working for a law firm as a consultant, a solicitor made disclosures in the form of emails in which he expressed the view that a client was being overcharged. After his consultancy was terminated, he complained to an Employment Tribunal (ET) that he had been subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures.

The ET accepted that he had disclosed information that he believed indicated that the client had been overcharged. He also believed that the information tended to show that the firm had breached its contractual obligations to the client. Both beliefs were reasonably held. However, his claim was rejected on the basis that he did not reasonably believe that the disclosures were in the public interest.

Ruling on his challenge to that outcome, the EAT noted that the ET made no finding that the firm had in fact overcharged its client. The truth or otherwise of the allegation was irrelevant to the question of what the man reasonably believed.

Upholding his appeal, the EAT noted that solicitors, as officers of the court, are held to high standards of honesty and integrity and that overcharging a client may raise professional regulatory issues. The ET had applied the wrong legal test in finding that the disclosures contained no public interest element and related solely to the private contractual relationship between the firm and its client.

The EAT emphasised that a disclosure of information relevant only to one person – in this case a single client – may nevertheless be a matter of public interest. The ET had also erred in failing to ask itself whether the disclosures had a material influence on the decision to terminate the man’s consultancy. His complaint was sent back for fresh consideration by a differently constituted ET.

Voluptatem fugit sed asperiores eius.

Modi necessitatibus autem ullam illo. Necessitatibus minima voluptatum odit. Ipsum soluta animi error facilis natus.

Facere excepturi architecto odit voluptate dicta. Dolorem facilis cupiditate enim libero nihil ullam voluptas. Sint tempore suscipit odit in a quisquam.

Quis impedit voluptas voluptatum est. Eos nemo sequi laborum sed aut quam. Culpa sed accusantium quibusdam dicta.

Cleaner Unfairly Dismissed Following ‘Engineered’ Disciplinary Process

Employers may be put under pressure by an unhappy client to take action against a particular employee. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, that is all the more reason why a scrupulously fair procedure must be followed. The case concerned a cleaner who underwent a PCR test at a walk-in COVID-19 testing centre. He later completed a shift at a supermarket. That evening, he was notified that the test was positive and swiftly informed his employer, a cleaning contractor. He duly…

Furlough Scheme Abuse Whistleblower Receives Substantial Compensation

Every right-thinking person would agree that workplace whistleblowers deserve not retaliation but praise. However, the opposite sadly happened in the case of a public-spirited factory worker who expressed deep ethical concern about his employer’s criminal abuse of the COVID-19 furlough scheme. The man, who had a vulnerable daughter at particular risk from COVID-19, complained to management that self-isolation rules were not being followed after one of his co-workers tested positive for the…

Redundancy Selection – Subjective Performance Assessment is Not Enough

Conducting a fair redundancy process requires a careful, almost forensic approach and it is almost never good enough for employers to rely on a subjective assessment of an employee’s past performance. An Employment Tribunal (ET) succinctly made that point in upholding an IT engineer’s unfair dismissal claim. A small company needed to make cost savings due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and decided that one of its two IT engineers should be made redundant. A selection process was…