The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant made protected disclosures in respect of the introduction of a new rota system, which he reasonably believed posed a danger to the health and safety of patients, and to be made in the public interest. Subsequent to this, concerns raised by colleagues about his alleged conduct were referred to an investigation process, during which he was placed on restricted duties. The Claimant alleged that a number of matters to do with the instigation and handling of that process amounted to detrimental treatment by the colleague at whose instigation the new rota system had been introduced, as well as by others. The Tribunal found that he did make protected disclosures, but all of his claims of detrimental treatment because of the protected disclosures failed.
Held: the Tribunal had failed properly to analyse and engage with its own findings of fact, and evaluations of the Respondent’s conduct, in various respects. That is having regard to the legal test of whether a detriment is on ‘grounds’ of a protected disclosure, to the provisions of section 48(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 on the burden of proof, and associated guidance in the authorities. A cross-appeal in respect of the Tribunal’s conclusions that there were protected disclosures was dismissed.
Citations:
[2019] UKEAT 0047 – 19 – 2309
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650893
