EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Whistleblowing
Appellant raised concerns with employer about immigration status of staff and students, and other alleged irregularities – Dismissed shortly afterwards – Claim of ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal but also of detriment and dismissal for making a protected disclosure contrary to ss 47B and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Held:
(1) Tribunal failed to deal with claim under s. 4 7
(2) On its factual findings as to the reason for the dismissal the Tribunal should have found unfair dismissal contrary to s. 103A – It wrongly focused only on the Appellant’s most recent disclosure, and held that that was not the principal reason for her dismissal, having regard to her previous history of difficulties with the Respondent – That approach failed to take into account that that history itself largely consisted of other protected disclosures.
Judges:
Underhill J, P
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0448 – 08 – 0505
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 47B 103A
Citing:
Cited – Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd CA 17-Apr-2008
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v M S Knight EAT 18-Nov-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347182