Whistleblowing/Public interest disclosures
In Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] IRLR 38 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal erred in deciding that a solicitor's letter amounted to a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The letter merely stated the employee's position in an ongoing dispute, without alleging any facts.
In Hibbins v Hesters Way Neighbourhood Project EAT/0275/08, the EAT held that a teacher's disclosure that a prospective student was a suspect in a criminal case was capable of being a protected disclosure for the purposes of the whistleblowing legislation.
In Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] IRLR 530, the Court of Appeal held that, having rejected the potentially fair reason for dismissal put forward by the employer, the tribunal was not obliged to accept the automatically unfair reason put forward by the employee. It was entitled to find that the employer had at least proved that this was not the reason for dismissal.
In Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] IRLR 346 the Court of Appeal held that to qualify for protection from detriment or dismissal for whistleblowing, a worker must hold a "reasonable belief" that the information disclosed tends to show that a criminal offence will be committed or that there will be non-compliance with a legal obligation.
In Bolton School v Evans [2007] IRLR 140 CA, the Court of Appeal has held that protection against a detriment for making a protected disclosure does not extend to dismissal for conduct that is designed to demonstrate that the belief in the wrongdoing is reasonable.
Legislation protecting whistleblowers was introduced seven years ago. This article reviews the legislation and considers some of the substantial body of case law arising out of it. It also looks at the components of an effective whistleblowing policy.
In Woodward v Abbey National plc [2006] EWCA Civ 822 CA, the Court of Appeal held that statutory protection against being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure is not limited to the duration of the employment contract but extends to cover detriment imposed by an employer on its former employee.
In Melia v Magna Kansei Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that where an employee has been subjected to detriment for having made a protected disclosure and then resigned claiming constructive dismissal, compensation for injured feelings should be assessed over the entire period up to the date of termination.
In Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers' Centre, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal had been correct to find that an employee's "whistleblowing" disclosure was not made in good faith because, although she believed her allegations to be true and did not make the disclosure for personal gain, her motivation for making it was personal antagonism towards the subject of the disclosure.
This week's case round-up from Eversheds: covering whistleblowing.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to whistleblowing/Public interest disclosures.