The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that allegations about accounting malpractices that affected the bonuses and commission of 100 senior managers were made in the reasonable belief that they were in the public interest.
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a police officer who made protected disclosures was dismissed after taking matters into his own hands and becoming difficult to manage because he was not satisfied with the action taken following the concerns that he had raised, and that he was not dismissed for blowing the whistle.
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.