In Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw EAT/0150/13, the EAT held that a worker had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by warning of the danger of sales representatives being required to drive in heavy snow. This was a disclosure of information tending to show a risk to health and safety and went beyond a mere assertion or expression of opinion. The fact that the disclosure was made through three separate emails to two different people did not alter the fact that a protected disclosure had been made.
Amanda Steadman is a professional support lawyer and Ed Gregory, Rosie Kight and Joanne Magill are associate solicitors at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with an employment tribunal that emails sent by the claimant taken together were capable of amounting to qualifying disclosures, even though the emails were sent to different individuals in different departments.
In this week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, the EAT held that a post-termination disclosure can constitute a protected disclosure for the purposes of a detriment claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, concerns a school assistant who claimed that she was dismissed for whistleblowing after she went to the press over her treatment for telling parents that their child had been bullied.
In Local Government Yorkshire and Humber v Shah EAT/0587/11 & EAT/0026/12, the EAT held that the potential uplift in compensation awarded where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the "Acas code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures" applies only in the case of employees. A worker who was subjected to an unlawful detriment was not entitled to an uplift.
The Court of Appeal has held that the test where a worker is alleging a detriment for whistleblowing is to decide whether or not the protected disclosure has materially influenced (in the sense of being more than a trivial influence) the employer's treatment of the individual.
In Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester [2011] IRLR 111 EAT, the EAT held that, where a worker has suffered a detriment following a protected disclosure, the employer must prove that its act or deliberate failure to act was “in no sense whatever” on the grounds that the employee had done the protected act.